Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
|||
Line 1,091: | Line 1,091: | ||
== Protected edit request on 14 March 2022 == |
== Protected edit request on 14 March 2022 == |
||
{{ |
{{Edit fully-protected|Wikipedia:Notability (sports)|answered=yes}} |
||
Restore [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)&oldid=1076808076 this revision], which had been [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Protected edit request on 9 March 2022|the consensus version]] before its removal by an edit warrior. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) |
Restore [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)&oldid=1076808076 this revision], which had been [[Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Protected edit request on 9 March 2022|the consensus version]] before its removal by an edit warrior. [[User:Avilich|Avilich]] ([[User talk:Avilich|talk]]) 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
*This should not have been removed and had been added uncontroversially. A closure review being ongoing (which does not appear like it's going to overturn the closure, FWIW) does not give ''carte blanche'' to people to [[WP:STONEWALL]] a consensus which they don't like. [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] applies. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 01:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC) |
*This should not have been removed and had been added uncontroversially. A closure review being ongoing (which does not appear like it's going to overturn the closure, FWIW) does not give ''carte blanche'' to people to [[WP:STONEWALL]] a consensus which they don't like. [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]] applies. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 01:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC) |
||
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:EP --> This comment does not make me feel better about the idea of unprotecting the article and using p-blocks on anyone who edit wars, because I'd rather not have any at all. If I protected the [[WP:WRONGVERSION]], that's too bad. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 01:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:45, 15 March 2022
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A note on NSPORT systematic bias
Arguments have been made that these guidelines help address WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS; that they support the creation of articles about female athletes. The reverse is true; as can be seen in the table below these guidelines focus on men's leagues and men's tournaments, and in doing so make it easier to create biographies about men than it is to create biographies about women, likely contributing to why only 17% of biographies cover women. Further, these guidelines make it harder to delete biographies about men than it is to delete biographies about women, which likely contributes to why 41% of biographies nominated for deletion cover women.
This issue of NSPORT contributing to systematic bias extends beyond specific SNG's, and to NSPORT in general as it lacks SNG's on sports where women's participation and coverage exceeds men's, such as volleyball, netball, and softball.
SNG | Men's leagues covered | Women's Leagues covered | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
NGRIDIRON | 5 | 0 | |
NFOOTBALL | 150 | 9 | Listed at Wikiproject Football; note the women's list is marked as incomplete. |
NCRICKET | 44 | 7 | Listed at Wikiproject Cricket; note that not all top tier cricket tournaments are considered sufficiently notable to provide presumptive notability, with 49% of listed men's tournaments being considered sufficiently notable, compared to 13% of women's. |
NBASKETBALL | 11 | 1 | |
NBASEBALL | 11 | 1 |
Partially, but not entirely, this reflects a disparity in participation and coverage, but it doesn't alter the fact that not only does NSPORT not reduce the disparity in coverage, it increases it.
To clarify: there are two requirements for an article to be created; notability, and editor time. The former is (or should be) based on significant coverage in independent and reliable sources, and any systematic bias that results from that is beyond our ability to address, and so this note attempts to address the latter.
To summarize this attempt, it is easier to create an article that meets NSPORTS than it is to create an article that meets GNG. Because this is true, because articles that are easier to create are more likely to be created, and because significantly more men than women are covered by NSPORTS, we are effectively encouraging editors to create biographies on men over women. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Clarified BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Note that this issue also affects how our coverage is weighted towards the global north; in NGRIDIRON and NBASKETBALL, all the listed leagues are in the global north. In NFOOTBALL, 103 out of 159 leagues are in the global north, while NBASEBALL has ten out of eleven leagues being based in the global north.
- NCRICKET is a rare exception to this, with 27 out of 50 cricket tournaments being in the global south, although as 70 out of the 91 listed as not being sufficiently notable are in the global south it is likely that issues remain. BilledMammal (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of cricket, the inclusion of leagues was based largely on whether we could with any reasonable confidence expect to meet GNG level sourcing for any article. This is partly why there are fewer women's leagues and relatively more from the global south are excluded from the list. For example, good luck finding much coverage consistently of people playing in the Logan Cup. It's there for some, but not consistently enough for us to have included it. There's also the caveat of
Players that have played in tournaments deemed non-notable may still be notable if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of GNG
which allows inclusion of anyone playing in any of the other tournaments if there are suitable sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC) - You do realize that there simply are more countries in the global north than there are in the global south, don't you? That's why there are more articles on leagues in the north.Tvx1 22:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Global North and Global South - there are both more countries and more people in the Global South. BilledMammal (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- In terms of cricket, the inclusion of leagues was based largely on whether we could with any reasonable confidence expect to meet GNG level sourcing for any article. This is partly why there are fewer women's leagues and relatively more from the global south are excluded from the list. For example, good luck finding much coverage consistently of people playing in the Logan Cup. It's there for some, but not consistently enough for us to have included it. There's also the caveat of
- This counterargument would only make sense if there was no link at all between these SNGs and GNG. If we were to do as some suggest and get rid of these SNGs, then what would happen is that editors would only create articles based on the coverage they see, and these are even more biased towards Men's sports and the "Global north" than is recognised in the SNGs. The disparaties that exist are down to disparaties in coverage by reliable sources, not disparaties in the SNGs. As for volleyball, netball, and softball, fix the problem and create an SNG for these sports. Iffy★Chat -- 12:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- My objection to that is noted in the first paragraph; the effort and time required to create an article under one of these SNG's is considerably less than the effort and time required to create an article under GNG. When considered with the focus noted above, what this means is that the effort and time required to create a biography for a man is considerably less than the effort and time required to create a biography for a women.
- I agree - and noted - that some of this issue is due to the disparity in coverage, but a lot of it is due to the fact that editors are effectively encouraged to create articles about men over articles about women. BilledMammal (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I always treat NSPORTS as being equal and applying to both men and women. It's only harder because there tends to be less coverage of women who may be eligible for an article. I do think it would be good if we had an editing contest similar to WP:Atdrag with tangible prizes to encourage the creation of more sportswomen. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I've found this quite a difficult area to judge. Clearly there's generally much more coverage of male sport than female sport which naturally skews things. Also it's very difficult to judge any sort of "correct" ratio. Volleyball was mentioned above, and I gather that a lot more women play volleyball in the US than men. But is that true world wide? I'm an ex-volleyball player myself and where I'm from I never found that to be the case. The fact that we've got 3500 (3400+ living) female volleyball players and 3600 male golfers (2500 living) when coverage of male golf is 1000 times that of female volleyball in my neck of the woods, doesn't tell me anything about sex bias, it only convinces me that team sports in general are over-represented. Nigej (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- We all know that coverage of men's and women's sport is disparate. What is your point? Is your "solution" to eliminate NSPORTS? If so, that is no solution at all. The disparity in coverage is, unfortunately, far worse that the disparity in NSPORTS. Moreover, your statistical survey is quite skewed in that it omits many sports where participation by women is much higher, e.g., figure skating, tennis, equestrian sport, and gymnastics. The NSPORTS guidelines for these and other sports have great value in encouraging the creation of articles on women. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that there are two requirements for an article to be created; notability, and editor time. Because creating articles under NSPORTS requires less time than creating them under GNG, we are encouraging editors to write articles that are covered by the former, and because men are far more likely to be covered by NSPORTS than women, we are encouraging editors to write articles on men over women.
- And the statistical survey covers 52% of sports biographies; I don't think it is skewed - compare this to 3.3% for figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics (I don't have the figures for equestrian sport, but I assume it isn't particularly high).
- As for what to do, that is a more difficult question, but as part of considering these guidelines it is important to keep in mind the behaviours that they will encourage in editors, and whether these behaviours are desirable for the project. BilledMammal (talk) 17:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Including WP:NGRIDIRON in your analysis is dubious since there is no major league for women's gridiron football. And WP:NOLYMPICS is another guideline that treats men and woman equally. While progress is needed, the contention that things would be better without NSPORTS is specious. Cbl62 (talk)
- I am curious about the stats. Do you have a breakdown by sport for what percentage each major sport makes up of Wikipedia biographies? Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Is it easier to create articles that meet NSPORT than it is to create articles that meet GNG?
- Are significantly more men covered by NSPORT than women?
- Are articles that are easier to create more likely to be created?
- If the answer to all of these is yes, then in the specific area of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS, Wikipedia would be better off without the aspects of NSPORTS that result in #2 being true - though whether Wikipedia would be better of in general is a different question. As for including NGRIDIRON, the point is that it contributes to the fact that significantly more men are covered by NSPORT than women. Finally, in regards to the stats, I've been using the figures here. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- We disagree as to whether coverage would be better for women without NSPORTS, but I do appreciate your sharing the stats. It would be interesting to see these stats broken down by sex. @Nigej: Do you know of any breakdowns by sport and sex? Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: For the sports you mentioned: "figure skating, tennis, equestrian sport, and gymnastics" the numbers are male: 2000, 5700, 2100, 2900 female: 2300, 4300, 800, 3300 (based on categories like Category:Female tennis players), so roughly 53%, 43%, 28%, 53% female. Totals for all sports will be massively skewed by sports like soccer which has 10,000 female out of the 200,000 total (ie 5%). Nigej (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nigej. So women do quite well proportionately in figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics (I expected it to be higher in equestrian), and I think NSPORTS helps in that regard. And, yes, soccer skews everything. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if it helps, but it doesn't do harm. What does harm is the aspects that are wildly disproportionate (NFOOTBALL, NGRIDIRON etc) and it is possible that due to that harm Wikipedia would be better off without those specific SNGs. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Has it ever occurred to you that there are certain sports that simply have fewer female competitors than male ones? Let alone notable ones.Tvx1 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't explained myself well. That is true, and that is not an issue. What is an issue is if we make it easier to create biographies of a men than it is to create to biographies of women, as by doing so we encourage editors to create the former over creating the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don’t. Our guidelines are in balance with coverage in reliable sources of males and females.Tvx1 03:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'd ask you to go over the three questions provided above; if the answers to those are all "yes", then we do. Whether this negative outweighs the positives of the SNG's is a different question, but that question won't change the fact that we make it easier to create articles about men than women beyond the external differences such as coverage, and by doing so create a disparity in coverage beyond what exists in reliable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- We don’t. Our guidelines are in balance with coverage in reliable sources of males and females.Tvx1 03:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't explained myself well. That is true, and that is not an issue. What is an issue is if we make it easier to create biographies of a men than it is to create to biographies of women, as by doing so we encourage editors to create the former over creating the latter. BilledMammal (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not to mention that the women's gridiron league that probably generated the most coverage for its players was the league formerly known as the "Lingerie Football League". Gridiron not only has far fewer women players, its sad that its most covered league was basically pay-per-view entertainment more in line with WP:NENT than NSPORT. Yosemiter (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Has it ever occurred to you that there are certain sports that simply have fewer female competitors than male ones? Let alone notable ones.Tvx1 22:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't know if it helps, but it doesn't do harm. What does harm is the aspects that are wildly disproportionate (NFOOTBALL, NGRIDIRON etc) and it is possible that due to that harm Wikipedia would be better off without those specific SNGs. BilledMammal (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- These are living and dead, which partly explains the equestrian (90% of the women are still alive but only just over half the men) Nigej (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, Nigej. So women do quite well proportionately in figure skating, tennis, and gymnastics (I expected it to be higher in equestrian), and I think NSPORTS helps in that regard. And, yes, soccer skews everything. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Cbl62: For the sports you mentioned: "figure skating, tennis, equestrian sport, and gymnastics" the numbers are male: 2000, 5700, 2100, 2900 female: 2300, 4300, 800, 3300 (based on categories like Category:Female tennis players), so roughly 53%, 43%, 28%, 53% female. Totals for all sports will be massively skewed by sports like soccer which has 10,000 female out of the 200,000 total (ie 5%). Nigej (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- We disagree as to whether coverage would be better for women without NSPORTS, but I do appreciate your sharing the stats. It would be interesting to see these stats broken down by sex. @Nigej: Do you know of any breakdowns by sport and sex? Cbl62 (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- @BilledMammal: I answer these
Is it easier to create articles that meet NSPORT than it is to create articles that meet GNG?
If the NSPORT SNG is accurately calibrated, it should be equal. The SNG by default should be able to GNG (which is true for most, but I do know there is disagreement on certain sports). The problem some have is that certain sports stubs are created without any immediate evidence (non-stats sites) provided, thus leaving others to either expand to prove GNG or doing a proper WP:BEFORE to and AfD/prod.
Are significantly more men covered by NSPORT than women?
I'll fix this for you:
Are significantly more men covered by
NSPORTreliable and independent media than women?Yes, many sports have both a greater quantity of coverage and from better quality of sourcing for men's sports than non-men's sports. There are also usually a much higher number of men's leagues and players in the world in a given sport than women (which is a different set of bias). If there is systemic bias, then it is in the media we are given and we reflect that per WP:RGW. If we take WP:NHOCKEY as an example, the Hockey project has extensively looked into player coverage in the top level amateur and recent pro women's leagues. It showed that most mid-level players did not generate much coverage outside of blogs and school newspapers (about 2/3 might meet GNG, but we could not determine a set of standards that did not look like a bunch of gender-biased qualifiers). Making "special rules/guidelines" simply to make more women have "presumed notability" is just as problematic as equal rules as it would outwardly appear that we, as a group, are holding women to a higher bar of accomplishment when really it is the other way around: media only covers the higher bar of accomplishment. For now, it is what it is, and the only thing we can do to change it is to continue to support the non-men's leagues so that it will be apparent that people do want coverage of said leagues and players.
Are articles that are easier to create more likely to be created?
Probably yes, because there are clearly defined rules of thumb for newer editors to have guidance on. Only have "special rules/guidelines" would alleviate this problem (see above statement).
- Not sure this helps, but in short. If the NSPORTS SNG seems biased, it is probably reflective of the GNG itself. It is not meant to be exclusive. Yosemiter (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
The problem some have is that certain sports stubs are created without any immediate evidence (non-stats sites) provided, thus leaving others to either expand to prove GNG or doing a proper WP:BEFORE to and AfD/prod.
- this is the aspect that I am primarily addressing, as this issue encourages the mass creation of such articles on men, without encouraging any similar mass creation for women, and in doing so means that the disparity in coverage on Wikipedia is greater than the disparity in coverage in the broader world.- And to be clear, I don't believe that the correct response is to encourage any such mass creation for women, I believe the correct result is to discourage the mass creation of such articles in general - we'll still end up with more articles on men than on women, but at least our policies aren't exacerbating this disparity. BilledMammal (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I personally don't really disagree with you on that point, although I would argue it's not "easier" with an SNG, just more defined or "clearer". As a community, we have put restrictions on a few editors that were prolific stub creators because of not using sufficient sourcing, thus creating more work for others (a type of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing). The counterpoint usually used to that is when the stubs are questioned, folks can often find the sources to back up GNG, even if the article creator themselves did not. The argument should be where is the line between disruptive creation of stubs and helpful creation of stubs if they will end up meeting GNG either way? Usually it's if someone is making hundreds (or thousands) of stubs for players just because they met the SNG, not just a few. (And I have also seen mass creation of women's players, simply because they felt that the current SNG is biased for following GNG and that GNG is inappropriate for minorities and inherently biased. They are not wrong, but also not right.) Yosemiter (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- Male sportspeople get a lot more coverage than female sportspeople. Since coverage is at the heart of the GNG, the GNG has more of a problem of systemic bias than this SNG. --Michig (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I made my initial point well; I have tried to clarify. BilledMammal (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- No neither has that problem at all. If there is a difference in the quantity of coverage for male and female competitors in reliable sources in a particular sport, Wikipedia just needs to reflect that. We need to be in balance with the real-life situation. Wikipedia is NOT the place to right great wrongs. It is not our duty to generate a false parity.Tvx1 22:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a "great wrong"... that comes too easily exaggerated off too many tongues these days. We need flexibility in older records because sources are not as easily come by. We should not apply the same standards to things that happen today where sources come out of the woodwork. You don't make things up, and you use sources, but using data for a Wimbledon Champion in 1900 where the best records have been destroyed through time, should be more accepted. Today a high school tennis player can get written up in a newspaper, but they aren't more important than a tennis champion should be. This is where SNGs shine and help out women a great deal as a consequence. We are talking about a small article, not resurrecting the mass extinction of the dodo bird. Older women's tennis articles will almost always have less info than their male counterparts. Even recently the Men have a minor league tennis organization where winners of events only pretty much always have a lock on notability. men also have a minor-minor league where you aren't notable even if you win. The women only had the minor-minor league set up but had payouts in their top echelon that equaled the men's minor league. The WTA just failed to qualify them as minor league. Our guidelines simply struck a minimal balance. It's not righting a great wrong, it's simply fair and just, takes up minimal space and effort, and has worked pretty well. Turning Wikipedia into a strict computer generated yes and no pile of articles seems wrong to me. I saw the same thing with article titles because a few people don't want to allow flexibility, but that ship sailed. Maybe this one will too but I'll still think it's wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's not about righting wrongs. It's about having sensible criteria for when a subject merits an article, which for sportspeople should be based on the significance of their sporting career, which will be determined to some extent by how much their career has been noticed, but that shouldn't be the be all and end all. People write a lot about things that don't really belong in an encyclopedia, which is why GNG is such a clumsy, ill-considered doctrine to follow, which also casts a shadow over many SNGs because of the insistence by some that SNGs must indicate that GNG is likely to be satisfied. --Michig (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to make NSPORT not require GNG coverage and instead by based solely on accomplishment, you should make a proposal at VPP. But since it explicitly does, making arguments that rest on ignoring it does not achieve anything in this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- To each they're own I guess. If a group of athletes in a category meet GNG 95%-99% of the time, it is much easier, much fairer, and creates much less headache and edit wars, if we deem that category as meets GNG. Then if someone has an issue with one or two people, they can be looked a separately if someone complains. That's the way it should work and that's the way it usually works. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- If you want to make NSPORT not require GNG coverage and instead by based solely on accomplishment, you should make a proposal at VPP. But since it explicitly does, making arguments that rest on ignoring it does not achieve anything in this discussion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's not about righting wrongs. It's about having sensible criteria for when a subject merits an article, which for sportspeople should be based on the significance of their sporting career, which will be determined to some extent by how much their career has been noticed, but that shouldn't be the be all and end all. People write a lot about things that don't really belong in an encyclopedia, which is why GNG is such a clumsy, ill-considered doctrine to follow, which also casts a shadow over many SNGs because of the insistence by some that SNGs must indicate that GNG is likely to be satisfied. --Michig (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is not a "great wrong"... that comes too easily exaggerated off too many tongues these days. We need flexibility in older records because sources are not as easily come by. We should not apply the same standards to things that happen today where sources come out of the woodwork. You don't make things up, and you use sources, but using data for a Wimbledon Champion in 1900 where the best records have been destroyed through time, should be more accepted. Today a high school tennis player can get written up in a newspaper, but they aren't more important than a tennis champion should be. This is where SNGs shine and help out women a great deal as a consequence. We are talking about a small article, not resurrecting the mass extinction of the dodo bird. Older women's tennis articles will almost always have less info than their male counterparts. Even recently the Men have a minor league tennis organization where winners of events only pretty much always have a lock on notability. men also have a minor-minor league where you aren't notable even if you win. The women only had the minor-minor league set up but had payouts in their top echelon that equaled the men's minor league. The WTA just failed to qualify them as minor league. Our guidelines simply struck a minimal balance. It's not righting a great wrong, it's simply fair and just, takes up minimal space and effort, and has worked pretty well. Turning Wikipedia into a strict computer generated yes and no pile of articles seems wrong to me. I saw the same thing with article titles because a few people don't want to allow flexibility, but that ship sailed. Maybe this one will too but I'll still think it's wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Here's my answer, and my perspective includes being someone who's actually been not only a regular attendee of women's collegiate and professional sport (something I wonder how many proponents of BilledMammal's POV can claim), I've been a print reporter for the same. And with that, feh. SYSTEMICBIAS isn't a guideline, a policy or any sort of mandate. It's an opinion essay. And if it fuels (frankly) bullshit like some of these assertions, it's not worth much even as that. BilledMammal comes up with statements, for instance, such as "NSPORT ... lacks SNG's on sports where women's participation and coverage exceeds men's, such as volleyball, netball, and softball." I notice that BilledMammal carefully left out sports such as gymnastics, figure skating, tennis, golf and athletics, where women's participation and coverage are at the least strong and in several of them exceed men's ... and where there ARE SNGs. And gosh, yes, the "global north" (which encompasses nearly ninety percent of the world's population) likely gets more press coverage than the "global south" ... unless one is ready to fudge the boundaries to better fit their amour propre.
I could pick nits and poke holes until the cows come home, but here's the bottom line. Once we start ditching neutral, objective notability guidelines with the purported goal of righting great wrongs, where does it stop? Okay, half the planet's population are women. So stipulated. China, for instance, has nearly 20% of the world's population. Is BilledMammal willing to agree that 20% of all biographical articles be reserved for mainland Chinese? (Toss in India, and those two countries are over a third of the world's population.) Africa's got a similar percentage ... should we reserve 20% of biographies for natives of that continent? A quarter of the world's population is Muslim. Should we have a religious test, as well? How about an ethnic one? How many world leaders are black? And by whose count? Barack Obama was widely touted as America's first black president, but in truth he has just as much white ancestry as black.
And so on, and so forth. Women have no better claim to demographic equality than those of any nationality, ethnicity or faith. And who's going to keep score? Never mind sort out the increasing number of trans and gender-fluid/neutral athletes and other public figures. The resulting firestorm would make ANI look like a garden party. Ravenswing 23:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think you have misunderstood what I am discussing - I am discussing how our policies encourage the creation of articles for men over women, by making the requirements less stringent for such articles. Yes, the disparity exists, but the issue here is that we exacerbate it by setting our policies up in such a way that this is encouraged.
- And 90% of the population is not in the global north - 75% of the population is in the global south. See Global North and Global South. BilledMammal (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah ... that'd be the "... unless one is ready to fudge the boundaries to better fit their amour propre" part. I completely reject such a completely racist set of boundaries influencing ANY discussion of Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Ravenswing 08:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If reliable sources describe the Global North and Global South concept as racist then I would suggest you add such sources to the article, as currently it makes no mention of such claims. BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh for crying out loud -- is your intent to brawl for the sake of brawling? This is not about correcting mistakes in that article, and you ought to know it. This is whether your use of the concept holds water. My reason for thinking that the concept is innately racist is at a casual glance of the map, which very conveniently defines the "south" as everything south of the United States and Russia, except for sliding curious anomalies such as Australia, New Zealand and French Guiana into the "north" -- in other worse, the boundaries of "north" and "south" are defined more or less by whiteness. Ravenswing 17:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Not at all, although if you want to say that the concept I used in my analysis is racist without sources, you have to expect me to object to that. And you missed the "curious anomalies" of Singapore, Macao, Hong Kong, Japan, and South Korea. 19:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- The concept of the Global South is in no way racist - I'm frankly amazed that you never came across the Brandt Line in high school geography lessons. Perhaps you're old enough that they were called Third World Countries.
- I felt it was interesting to consider the way in which different sports are represented with respect to what is essentially their development status. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Oh for crying out loud -- is your intent to brawl for the sake of brawling? This is not about correcting mistakes in that article, and you ought to know it. This is whether your use of the concept holds water. My reason for thinking that the concept is innately racist is at a casual glance of the map, which very conveniently defines the "south" as everything south of the United States and Russia, except for sliding curious anomalies such as Australia, New Zealand and French Guiana into the "north" -- in other worse, the boundaries of "north" and "south" are defined more or less by whiteness. Ravenswing 17:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If reliable sources describe the Global North and Global South concept as racist then I would suggest you add such sources to the article, as currently it makes no mention of such claims. BilledMammal (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah ... that'd be the "... unless one is ready to fudge the boundaries to better fit their amour propre" part. I completely reject such a completely racist set of boundaries influencing ANY discussion of Wikipedia guidelines or policies. Ravenswing 08:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- And we have told you umpteen times that your assertion is wrong. These guidelines are no intentionally set up to make creation of articles dealing with males easier. There is no pro-men program being wrong here.Tvx1 03:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- And I don't believe they are intentionally set up in such a way. However, the inadvertent but functional effect of these guidelines is to make the creation of articles dealing with men easier, and we need to consider this functional effect and factor it into our considerations and decisions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- It seems you are against GNG then. If people put in the work to make an SNG that regularly meets GNG, and sources that meet GNG happen to have bias, then you think you think we should throw that work away? It's not our fault, or our responsibility, to fix what outside media covers. There are some sports, right now anyways, where there are 10x-100x more pro men's players than women's players in the world (gridiron, football, hockey, and basketball just to name a few). We can not fix that here by deleting the SNGs. Yosemiter (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- No. While GNG does result in a gender disparity, it only does this because it reflects the gender disparity in coverage and there is nothing we can or should do to correct this. These SNG's magnifies the gender disparity by making the average requirements to create an article on men less than the requirements to create an article on women, resulting in the disparity on Wikipedia being greater than the disparity outside of Wikipedia.
- You can argue that this is acceptable, that the benefit of this is greater than the cost - but I'm not sure I would agree, particularly since the benefit is significant numbers of micro stubs, and the cost is contributing to systematic bias, in addition to the harm this causes to Wikipedia's reputation. BilledMammal (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- And as you can see, there are quite a few editors who don't agree that this damages Wikipedia's reputation, that any fix you propose would reduce the number of microstubs, that "systemic bias" (or your definition of the same, anyway) is an evil which we must combat at all costs, and that imposing anti-"systemic bias" policies would create problems worse than you decry. Ravenswing 08:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- If deleting the SNG doesn't effectively change the inherent systemic bias in the GNG for a topic, then it's not a change at all (and some might call virtue signalling). It would just be throwing baby out with the bath water. Additionally, it would create chaos as each individual sports wikiproject would (and already has) come up with its own "rules of thumb" that would in effect act as a stand in for "presumed notability". At least by having it all in one place, we can monitor each other's assessments here. We shouldn't be hiding the bias by kicking it down a level, we should be highlighting how to counteract it (although, this would also look bad as it would look like we are holding minorities to a different standard). When it comes to bios, history is systemically biased in nearly all regards. It takes time to fix, but it shouldn't be hidden or ignored. Yosemiter (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that this creates bias beyond that which exists in the coverage, as (assuming it is effective as a notability guide) it doesn't result in more men being notable, but it does result in it being easier to create articles on notable men than notable women, and as a result the ratio of articles on men to articles on women is greater than it should be. BilledMammal (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yet you have not been able to produce any evidence of that preposterous claim. There just is not greater disparity on-Wikipedia than there is off-Wikipedia.Tvx1 23:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Gender Bias in Wikipedia; it is a little old, though it continues to be highly cited suggesting it is not outdated, and its focus on prominent individuals means that it won't fully account for the situation here as the articles being created under WP:NSPORTS are not of prominent individuals, but it is evidence of that "preposterous claim", and I will keep looking for something more recent. BilledMammal (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia find that women with articles on Wikipedia are slightly more notable than their male counterparts, with the gap being narrower for "very notable" people compared to marginally notable people. This would appear to support the notion that SNGs - and more specifically, NSPORT, given its oversized influence within biographies - is having an impact.
- Of further note is this statement: "1900–onwards: the three words most strongly associated with females are actress, women’s, and female. The three most strongly associated with males are played, league, and football". Setting aside the systematic bias issue for a moment, I think it establishes that biographies on Wikipedia are far too focused on sport. BilledMammal (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yet you have not been able to produce any evidence of that preposterous claim. There just is not greater disparity on-Wikipedia than there is off-Wikipedia.Tvx1 23:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that this creates bias beyond that which exists in the coverage, as (assuming it is effective as a notability guide) it doesn't result in more men being notable, but it does result in it being easier to create articles on notable men than notable women, and as a result the ratio of articles on men to articles on women is greater than it should be. BilledMammal (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- It seems you are against GNG then. If people put in the work to make an SNG that regularly meets GNG, and sources that meet GNG happen to have bias, then you think you think we should throw that work away? It's not our fault, or our responsibility, to fix what outside media covers. There are some sports, right now anyways, where there are 10x-100x more pro men's players than women's players in the world (gridiron, football, hockey, and basketball just to name a few). We can not fix that here by deleting the SNGs. Yosemiter (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- And I don't believe they are intentionally set up in such a way. However, the inadvertent but functional effect of these guidelines is to make the creation of articles dealing with men easier, and we need to consider this functional effect and factor it into our considerations and decisions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- There's one area that relates to categories, not NSPORTS, which I'll mention, since the topic is being discussed. Most sports have pairs of categories like male/female tennis players, male/female gymnasts, etc. However that's not universally the case. Some sports have a presumed assumption in the category structure that players are of one sex (generally male). Soccer is like this. We have the (oddly named) Category:Women's association football players but nothing corresponding to that for men. So while Roger Federer is in Category:Swiss male tennis players and Fara Williams is in Category:English women's footballers, David Beckham is in Category:English footballers. A few sports have 100% of one sex (I think netball is an example) so they don't need such a structure but it might be worth sports in this boat reviewing this aspect. Nigej (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I did a study of 1,000 random articles. And I divided every biography category into recent (active at their noted thing in the last 15 years) and non-recent. I considered a test of male/female bias to be recent non-sports bios and those were about 50/50 men/women. Both sports bios categories heavily male dominated, but for the older category this is even more so. And, while not directly relevant here, sports bios were over-represented, being 31% of all wiki bios.
BTW, from my NPP work, the main "way in" for nearly all sports bios is the SNG, and specifically the "did it for a living for one day" criteria. My guess is that the SNG is problematic but not sex-biased. Collectively it mostly just goes by the number of professional athletes collectively over the last 75 years which is heavily male-dominated. If you go one step deeper and analyze how it tracks GNG, my guess is that it does. GNG itself probably needs to be calibrated for sports. This is because, for this field uniquely, coverage itself is created mostly a form of entertainment, and so creation of such is less an indicator of notability. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with you. I've come to the conclusion that the "did it for a living for one day" criteria are a fundamental issue, and mainly relate to team sports. Most individual sports are more based on the "won something fairly big once" sort of criteria. I've not found much evidence that its sex-biased. I suspect the biggest problem related to sex-bias in the sports area is the sex of the editors, which is clearly male-dominated, probably even more so that male-dominated participation or coverage. In my own area, golf, I've focused mainly on the men's game but recently more on the "ladies", and I've found that there's actually a surprisingly large amount of coverage of the women's game in old newspapers. So in this area I suspect the issue is more related to the interests of the male editors, leading to an imbalance in our coverage. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- I for one would strongly oppose an apartheid-like regime (yes, hyperbole) under which athletes are treated as second-class persons or untouchables (yes, very bad and now mixed metaphor). I sympathize with and support efforts to reform those parts of NSPORTS that are not sufficiently calibrated to GNG, but then imposing a different GNG rule for athletes is "a bridge too far" (or adding to the metaphor spree, a "double whammy" -- though not the third through sixth linked definitions which I now see have surprising and unexpected sexual connotations). SIGCOV is SIGCOV, and reliable sources are reliable sources, whether we're analyzing athletes, entertainers, business persons, poets, or military leaders. Cbl62 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- My own position is simply that (1) the "did it for a living for one day" criteria lead to an imbalance in the number of sports biographies we have compared to all other areas of Wikipedia and (2) there is SIGCOV out there, but the male-dominated editors are looking for male coverage and SIGCOV for women is being ignored. Nigej (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with you on both counts. My metaphor spree was directed at North8000's comment. Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- NCORP defacto tweaks the source requirements for GNG. Although the "did it for a living for one day" SNG is the primary problem, a recognition that source criteria might need a tweak similar to Ncorp when discussing calibration to GNG would also be helpful. And to continue with the metaphor hyperbole fun, it's dismantling apartheid not implementing it. :-) Imagine if the "Bypass GNG if they did it for a living for one day" route available to he anointed class were available to the masses. :-) By that criteria, about 4 billion commoners would qualify for a separate Wikipedia article. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with you on both counts. My metaphor spree was directed at North8000's comment. Cbl62 (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- My own position is simply that (1) the "did it for a living for one day" criteria lead to an imbalance in the number of sports biographies we have compared to all other areas of Wikipedia and (2) there is SIGCOV out there, but the male-dominated editors are looking for male coverage and SIGCOV for women is being ignored. Nigej (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than rewriting GNG for sports (which I think is exceedingly unfair as applied to people rather than commercial enterprises), I believe that the better solution is to cut back significantly on the number of leagues that grant a presumption of notability. IMO NBASEBALL could be limited to MLB and jettison the Japanese and Korean baseball leagues and the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, and Olympics. Even more impactful would be eliminating all of the second-tier soccer and cricket leagues that currently grant a presumption. If push came to shove, I also have doubts under NGRIDIRON as to whether the Canadian Football League should bestow a presumption. I wish the "played one game" bit could be increased as well, but the resistance on that is surprisingly strong. Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it would be invidious to have a different GNG standard for sports than for other things. But even if we were to eliminate or hugely tighten NSPORT, we'd quickly see lots of 'keep, GNG' !votes that get us fairly deep into the weeds of what is or isn't a reliable source for that purpose. So that maybe needs to be looked at in more detail. Maybe it needs to further spell out what does or doesn't pass 'significance'. I've wandered into these discussions via the NGRIDIRON criterion, which frankly does strike me as weirdly lax... And yet, there are articles on players that don't even meet that which I'm certain I'd get my head bitten off if I were to query whether we should have them or not. Look at all these sports websites discussing this player not actually playing. Clearcut significant coverage! But it does seem that's maybe actually one of the better ones. Never mind "played in the second tier", try "was an unused sub in fourth tier" -- good enough for English soccer notability. (I had to just check that the fifth tier doesn't quite make it.) Just in case there's ever an article on that match, to avoid the terrible same of a redlink in the teamsheet? I can't even begin to get my head around the rationale for that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- For the more niche sports that aren't covered by mainstream, general news sources like The New York Times, The Independent, BBC, etc. what counts as a reliable source? And while I'm sure we have enough experts here for English sources, how many here are really capable of filtering out non-reliable sources from Google search results?—Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it would be invidious to have a different GNG standard for sports than for other things. But even if we were to eliminate or hugely tighten NSPORT, we'd quickly see lots of 'keep, GNG' !votes that get us fairly deep into the weeds of what is or isn't a reliable source for that purpose. So that maybe needs to be looked at in more detail. Maybe it needs to further spell out what does or doesn't pass 'significance'. I've wandered into these discussions via the NGRIDIRON criterion, which frankly does strike me as weirdly lax... And yet, there are articles on players that don't even meet that which I'm certain I'd get my head bitten off if I were to query whether we should have them or not. Look at all these sports websites discussing this player not actually playing. Clearcut significant coverage! But it does seem that's maybe actually one of the better ones. Never mind "played in the second tier", try "was an unused sub in fourth tier" -- good enough for English soccer notability. (I had to just check that the fifth tier doesn't quite make it.) Just in case there's ever an article on that match, to avoid the terrible same of a redlink in the teamsheet? I can't even begin to get my head around the rationale for that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Rather than rewriting GNG for sports (which I think is exceedingly unfair as applied to people rather than commercial enterprises), I believe that the better solution is to cut back significantly on the number of leagues that grant a presumption of notability. IMO NBASEBALL could be limited to MLB and jettison the Japanese and Korean baseball leagues and the World Baseball Classic, Baseball World Cup, and Olympics. Even more impactful would be eliminating all of the second-tier soccer and cricket leagues that currently grant a presumption. If push came to shove, I also have doubts under NGRIDIRON as to whether the Canadian Football League should bestow a presumption. I wish the "played one game" bit could be increased as well, but the resistance on that is surprisingly strong. Cbl62 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- North8000 - I spent the first half of this week editing replication crisis, so I have a lot of the themes of that on my mind. Could you elaborate on:
- the randomised method by which you chose the 1000 articles (e.g. went into some wikiproject category and picked every 3rd one), and if possible which articles those were
- how many articles were in each category, and how many were in the recent/non-recent groupings of those categories
- how did you decide what should be in a sports category
- were any articles in more that one category
- Obviously understandable if you didn't save that information, but it would be useful. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Xurizuri: I have all of that info which I'd need to dig out. But I'll answer right now what I know from memory. I used the "random article button" on the main Wiki page. I went until I got to 1,000, excluding / not counting disambig pages. The only categories that I divided by recent / non recent were biographies. For recent/non recent I divided those by whether or not they we active at their "main thing" within the last 15 years. For classifying it as sports, I just went by competitive activities and physical activities....something that would normally be called a sport. In the 1,000 articles I didn't run into tough edge cases on that (e.g. chess players, gamers). No article was in more than one category. There were few tough decisions in the area of sports and bios. I also tallied "places" where I went with "broadly construed" on edge cases. I think I'll put the full data and criteria on my user page and ping you when I have that done. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Xurizuri: I now have the methodology and all of the raw data up at User:North8000/Display I still going to add summaries etc. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Do we realise that there are for instance more than 40.000 men's and less than 5.000 women's football clubs in England? And that there are more than one and a half million registred men footballers and around 125.000 women footballers. In other countries the ratio is even higher. The number of covered leagues simply reflects that. NSPORTS does NOT increase the disparity. Even more, I am pretty sure that without this SNG the disparity would be even bigger, as average editors mostly have access to sources about male athletes from the English speaking and/or global north countries. I agree however that we should give more focus to the global south and east, which are often underrepresented, but that issue is not limited to sport. 212.85.174.201 (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't argue for a different GNG for sports. I in essence argued for two things:
- Tougher standards for sourcing in NSport, similar to NCorp
- Just keep the noted issue in mind when trying to fix NSports.
North8000 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Further proposals at Village Pump
Your input, one way or the other, on several additional proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:
- Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
- Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
- Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
- Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
- Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
- Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
- Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
- Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Another day and three more subproposals:
- Subproposal 11: "Rewrite the introductory paragraph to put this guideline on a similar footing to other SNGs, removing the dependence on the GNG, and making it clear that standalone articles should not be created for articles that can only be sourced to statistics databases."
- Subproposal 12: "Should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability for each of the following? ... This discussion will have no impact on Olympic athletes who medalled, as they are presumed notable under NOLYMPIC."
- Subproposal 13: "No more fucking subproposals. Let this thing run its course." Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Umpires Notability
Hi all. Can we create article for umpires who have umpired in ODI, T20I, WODI or notable domestic leagues or tournaments. Fade258 (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Notability (people) for the general guidance on determining if a person meets the standard for having an article. There has been no consensus support for special guidance regarding sports officials. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- And see also point #4 of WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure I understand the question, but if they've only stood in domestic matches (and not played any matches themselves), then WP:GNG would be the default. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's a general thing that passing the GNG is good enough for an article, whether or not the subject meets a subordinate notability criterion; so yes, a cricket umpire who fails NCRIC but has enough significant coverage to pass the GNG all the same, that'd do. Ravenswing 10:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to clarify Olympic participation as an indicator of notability
For each of the sports below, should participation in the Olympics be removed as an indicator of presumed notability? There is one survey for each sub-guideline that includes this presumption, in order to allow each sport to be treated individually.
This is a follow up to the 2021 RFC that removed the general presumption of notability for Olympic athletes, and will have no impact on Olympic athletes who medalled, as they are presumed notable under NOLYMPIC. 22:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Association football (soccer)
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in association football (soccer) at the Olympics here
- Support. Participation in team sports at the Olympics does not reliably predict sufficient coverage to write an article, due to the number of individuals involved and the grouped results. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The general Olympic guideline is appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Won't do much because NFOOTY is absurdly generous, but still better than nothing. MER-C 20:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support for the men's tournament Agree with MER-C, but on top of that, at least in modern times, the Olympic football tournament is far from being the pinnacle of the sport... Oppose for the women's tournament (the first women's Olympic football was in 1996, so there shouldn't be a need for a temporal cutoff here) per what Jkudlick writes, which I totally forgot about RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Suport applying the same standard across the board to the Olympics. It should be applied with particular force to team sports. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support removing the men's tournament on the grounds FIFA considers it to be a youth tournament. Oppose removing the women's tournament on the grounds FIFA considers it to be a senior tournament. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The RfC should also clarify NOLY presumes GNG coverage can be found, not "notability" itself. Editors may !vote very differently if they believe meeting NOLY allows a subject to bypass GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support for men but I really want to emphasize/second Jkudlick's comments regarding the Olympic women's tournament. It's completely different from the men's tournament in importance (Olympic soccer is a big deal in the women’s game, ranking second in prestige and importance to the World Cup. In men’s circles, not so much.) and when the accolades of teams/players are listed, the two tournaments are always discussed together. 1, 2, 3, 4. Alyo (chat·edits) 03:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Football is harder than other sports to be qualified, but the U-23 limits (maybe) do not represent notability. I would support for women, also. Football is not important in the Olympics. Thingofme (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support for men The men's tournament is primarily U23. The women's tournament is a senior-level event. --Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Support for menthe women's tournament are FIFA-recognised international matches, whereas the men's matches are under-23 fixtures. Therefore, no bias in having different rules for these tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)- Changing to support for the years that men's tournament is under-23 competition only. After clarification from GS in discussion that the men's tournament used to be a proper tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- FWIW, since I also had to follow up with what GS said, I don't know if "proper tournament" is fully accurate. In 1900 and 1904 it was a joke, from 1908-1928 it was the biggest international tournament around, from 1936-1980 it was an amateur tournament that maybe wasn't very well policed for the Soviets, and in '84 and '88 professionals were allowed if they hadn't appeared much for their national team. It's hard to say that the whole pre-1992 period would create a presumption of notability or significant coverage. Alyo (chat·edits) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Changing to support for the years that men's tournament is under-23 competition only. After clarification from GS in discussion that the men's tournament used to be a proper tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support for men since it's basically a youth tournament and isn't considered to be amongst the most high-profile in the sport. For women the Olympics are contested between proper senior international teams so it wouldn't make sense to remove them unless other international matches are removed as well. Hut 8.5 20:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose at least until 1928. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Actually pre-1928 is when we should support this removal the most. The further back you go the less clear it is that the Olympics made more than just a few of the top medal getters, pre-1928 I doubt it is even all medalists, and for 1904 it is clearly not even all gold medalists, notable. However I think Olympics notability of just letting medalists be notable is enough, and other articles need to have other ways of demonstrating notability, ultimately in all cases through passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Did you make a research or how can you claim that? Again, I can speak Croatia, for instance 1928, Ljubo Benčić, Mirko Bonačić, Slavin Cindrić, Franjo Giler, Emil Perška, Danijel Premerl, Nikola Babić, all well known footballers with enough existing sources (but again, many offline). They are all notable and competing at those Olympics seems as a proper indicator. Are other countries really so much worse sourced? Maybe Egypt? Ludost Mlačani (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If they are well known footballers with significant coverage than the articles will be kept regardless. The point is we can find lots of people who were involved in soccer in the Olympics for whom we cannot find significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; participation in almost all Olympic sports is not an indicator of notability; even less so in team sports, and football is not an exception to that. Unconvinced that the women's competition is a special case since arguments for keeping amount to claiming inherited notability rather than being based on the availability of significant coverage of the players. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. It's a team sport. Individuals are not necessarily notable or covered in the press. Nosferattus (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support for men as it is a U-23 competition, oppose for woman as it is considered an international match so they would pass NFOOTY anyway and it seems odd to let any international match except the Olympics satisfy that criteria. If we want to take out the explicit reference to the Olympics, I really don't care as NFOOTY would apply anyway, as long as we don't explicitly exclude it for women as some are suggesting. Smartyllama (talk) 13:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC) (Note: I accidentally left this in the wrong section earlier and am copy/pasting)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
- Comment. This could prove problematic in that this could appear to introduce WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. I say that because although FIFA considers the Olympic Games to be a men's youth tournament – each team may have no more than three players over the age of 23 – they also consider them a women's senior tournament as there is no such age restriction. This actually makes the Olympic Games a more difficult women's tournament to reach than the FIFA Women's World Cup because, including the host(s), there are only 12 nations in the Olympics as opposed to 32 in the WWC. I concur that the Olympic Games are a far less prestigious men's tournament than the World Cup (especially given FIFA is seriously considering making the World Cup a biennial tournament as opposed to quadrennial), but in the women's game they are considered to be almost on par with each other.
- Assuming this subproposal is accepted, if we disqualify both the men's and women's tournaments, that would invite the question "Why is this senior women's tournament not covered under NSPORTS if all others are?" If this is written to remove the men's tournament due to it being a youth tournament, yet still include the women's tournament due to it being a senior tournament, I can support the idea.
Until then, I will abstain.— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Everybody here is aware that the men's tournament has not always been an under-23 tournament, right? GiantSnowman 20:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ooooh, I wasn't--I just really didn't want the womens' tournament to get swept up in this. I would support this going back to 1992 at minimum, as that's when the age limit was instituted. That said it appears the tournament has had a pretty varied history w/r/t amateurism, especially pre-World Cup, and I wonder if this needs to be split off into a separate bullet in NFOOTY. I don't know if we'll be able to get the appropriate balance in just having the Olympics be a straight up yes or no given the changes over the years. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Worth considering that there was less coverage in general in previous years; if we don't presume notability after 1992, we shouldn't presume notability at all. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm reading through the relevant chapter of my copy of The Ball is Round right now and I think you're right. The mens' Olympic tournament has its peak (as far as prestige/professionalism) from 1908-1928 and it's not reasonable to presume sigcov that long ago just because someone played at the Olympics. (More likely to be sigcov from club games or the South American tours of Europe honestly.) Goldblatt doesn't write about the '84/'88 Olympics, which may have included some professionals, but on balance I find the Olympics to still be lacking as an indicator of coverage/notability. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Worth considering that there was less coverage in general in previous years; if we don't presume notability after 1992, we shouldn't presume notability at all. BilledMammal (talk) 20:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Ooooh, I wasn't--I just really didn't want the womens' tournament to get swept up in this. I would support this going back to 1992 at minimum, as that's when the age limit was instituted. That said it appears the tournament has had a pretty varied history w/r/t amateurism, especially pre-World Cup, and I wonder if this needs to be split off into a separate bullet in NFOOTY. I don't know if we'll be able to get the appropriate balance in just having the Olympics be a straight up yes or no given the changes over the years. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Everybody here is aware that the men's tournament has not always been an under-23 tournament, right? GiantSnowman 20:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If they have GNG coverage OK, but we should not expand default notability beyond medalists. I even question assuming that all members of a team that wins a medal are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Are full-age Olympic matches not regarded as Tier 1 matches by FIFA? If they are, then we could remove all mention of football from the Olympics, as relevant matches would be covered by NFOOTY anyway. Number 57 17:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- No I think the better plan is the put better limits on football notability guildelines. When 40% of articles on living people are on footballers it is 100% clear our football notability guidelines are far too inclusive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Small brain - we have too many footballer articles. Big brain - we don't have enough bios on other professions. We're an encyclopaedia, we're meant to have more info, not less. GiantSnowman 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- (e/c) I don't think that's the case at all. I would say the reason for the high percentage is that football is the most popular sport in the world and there are far more people out there willing to write biographies of footballers than there are willing to write about other people, such as politicians. All these repeated attempts to downgrade sportspeople notability is going to achieve is to drive away potential editors. It's incredibly sad how much time some editors spend on these efforts, when they could actually be making a positive contribution to Wikipedia's coverage of other topics; I would much rather these editors leave the project that the ones creating content. Number 57 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, if many articles get deleted then also many people, me included, will lose initiative to edit as not everyone is interested only in Messi and Ronaldo. That is actually already happening if we look closely to the current seasons articles. It is not our fault that people do not write articles about people from other professions and this is definetly not a solution. Wikipedia is not about ratios. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Galaxy brain: realize that it's an entirely spurious argument that we must continue the pretence that people barely and briefly making a living from pro sports are 'inherently notable', lest we deter editors... that are highly emotionally invested in creating wholly unencyclopedic articles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- No I think the better plan is the put better limits on football notability guildelines. When 40% of articles on living people are on footballers it is 100% clear our football notability guidelines are far too inclusive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Athletics/track & field and long-distance running
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes here
Comment- I would like to see this tested. The sport is one of the Olympic “glamour sports” to the point where I could conceivably see all competitors who make the Olympics being notable, but I’d like to see the data. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Supportfor Olympics prior to 1992. From 1992, I find that almost all Olympic Athletes from English speaking countries receive significant coverage and this is a reasonable predictor of notability - I assume this will also be true for non-English speaking countries. I note that some events, such as the 100m, have this become a reliable predictor much earlier, but I believe splitting NATH into different Olympic events will overcomplicated matters. BilledMammal (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)- Support in general; while there is more coverage after 1992, I have been convinced that there is no reason to increase the complexity of the guidelines by adding exceptions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Suport applying the same standard across the board to the Olympics. While there are "glamor" events, like the 100m, the long jump, etc., there are also events under the "athletics" umbrella that don't get the same level of attention. For example, we've seen AfDs recently, if memory serves, where no SIGCOV was found for pentathletes. Cbl62 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the former Olympic event athletics pentathlon/women's pentathlon, as the modern pentathlon's not an "athletics" event, but it's own one-event-per-gender sport. If the former is especially light on coverage, it's possible there's an argument to cut it some CSB-type slack by way of extending indulgence to a fairly niche-participation woman's sport at a time that'd have been ramping up from a very low level to a much higher one by the time it'd morphed into the heptathlon. In terms of "glamour", it does share with all other athletics in being a "main stadium" event, so there's some halo effect there, even if it's far from the Blue Riband. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. JoelleJay (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. without any exceptions. Nigej (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose if the Olympics are singled out from the current list of competed "in the Olympics, the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Indoor Championships in Athletics, the IAAF World Cross Country Championships, or the IAAF World Half Marathon Championships (former IAAF World Road Running Championships)." The Olympics are an equivalent competition to the others championship events. Conditional support if there is agreement to changing all to placement in the final/top 8. --Enos733 (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If simple participation in those events is equally unreliable as an indicator of presumed notability, they should also be removed (and replaced with achievement-based criteria, e.g. finalists). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also think this should come with data/testing. If there is one sport where taking part in the Olympics is enough to presume notability it's athletics, since it's the most high profile. Hut 8.5 20:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support we decided that only Olympic medialists are default notable. We need to actually enforce this ruling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose in silo, as Olympics are more notable than most other championships listed in that notability thread. Needs a wider discussion around which athletics competitors are notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; simple participation at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Track & field is one of the few sports where mere participation in the Olympics does generally lead to notability. I'm not sure what the point of mentioning pentathlete AfDs is as that is a completely different sport. Smartyllama (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- The "other" type of pentathlon indeed was an Olympics athletics event, but I'm not sure if that was what being referred to. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
- I am not convinced in the pre-WWI Olymlics that even medaling is a clear sign of notability. There are porbably many recent non-medalists who get plenty of sigcov, and we will keep these. However having read through virtually every article in Wikipedia on people born from 1911-1929, I know that the vast majority of Olympian articles from that era have no sigcov sources at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is really needed. We see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Álvarez (sprinter) where we have people voting to keep even though they admit a total failure to find significatn coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Baseball
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in baseball at the Olympics here
- Support. Participation in team sports at the Olympics does not reliably predict sufficient coverage to write an article, due to the number of individuals involved and the grouped results. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The general Olympic guideline is appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support The normal guidelines should be enough. Players who participate in the Olympics are more likely to be notable through other means, anyways (by, you know, playing baseball at a level where they get enough attention to get selected into national teams, such is the Japanese baseball league or in MLB), so this is a bit of a redundant criterion. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Suport applying the same standard across the board to the Olympics. It should be applied with particular force to team sports. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per above. JoelleJay (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. MER-C 11:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support I would not even grant default notability to medalists, but that may need a tweak of Olympian notability guidelines for team medals. Clearly not eveyone who played.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; it is evident that participation in team sports at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support playing baseball in the Olympics is not like playing in the MLB, where most people would be notable for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Team sport. Individuals are not necessarily notable or covered in the press. Nosferattus (talk) 03:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- 'Support Unlike most team sports, baseball does not feature the best players at the Olympics as it occurs during the Major League Baseball season. Smartyllama (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
Cycling
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in cycling at the Olympics here
- Support. The general Olympic guideline is appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support 1) For modern day competitors, this guideline is likely redundant with the general cycling suggested cutoffs 2) it's difficult to extend this guideline too far in the past because cycling as an elite level sport wasn't quite what it is today for most of the 20th century... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Competing at the olympics is a great achievement and for most athletes there are enough sources. For the older athletes those are offline and harder to find, so this proposal is biased against recentism. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The additional fact which you curiously do not mention is that for older athletes, coverage is nowhere near as prevalent as today (one could say that at the very least, this is simply because publishing something in a print newspaper way back then took more time, effort, and money [hence limited space] than in the current internet era; although that is likely only part of the solution...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did not mention it, because it is not true. I can speak for Croatia, for the athletes such as August Prosenik, Đuro Dukanović, Antun Banek, Stjepan Ljubić etc. there is enough inforamtion in old sports books and newspapers I have read. They were huge stars back then and Croatian sports journalism was relatively well develepod at the time. But if someone was to put them on Afd, they would probably be deleted, because in 7 days noone would bother to go to Croatia to a library to present that. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "noone would bother to go to Croatia to a library to present that" you mean "the creator of the article did not bother doing the most basic thing, which is looking for sources BEFORE writing it"? And expecting people (unpaid volunteers) to do international travel (on short term notice, one week) to substantiate the possible notability of some random athlete from half a century ago is well and above the usual requirements - frankly, it's comical. And even if it might be the case for Croatia or a few other countries were "sports journalism was relatively well developped", that would still mean that most of these athletes from other countries are unlikely to meet GNG - hence, their shouldn't be an unwarranted presumption; and athletes which do meet the GNG will be kept no matter what, so there's no problem here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "And expecting people (unpaid volunteers) to do international travel (on short term notice, one week) to substantiate the possible notability of some random athlete from half a century ago is well and above the usual requirements - frankly, it's comical." My point exactly and still people have no problem of by the way apathetically voting about such proposal. And have you looked at the articles Cycling at the olympics at all? e.g. Cycling at the 1932 Summer Olympics, look at participating countries, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and United States. Are you saying those countries had much less developed sports journalism than Croatia? Yes, there is an odd athlete here and there, but removing this policy and deleting all the articles just because of that would be highly counterprodutive. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying that we should delete all the articles. What we're saying is that assumption that you're automatically notable because you competed in the Olympic games should be removed. That's all. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and all I am saying is that the assuption is proper for Croatia and probably for most of the other countries and that despite that there will be a real possibility for all of the articles to be deleted, because (as the user above nicely said) noone is expecting people (unpaid volunteers) to do such international travel (on short term notice, one week). Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- And, similarly, nothing will prevent those articles from being rewritten/recreated by people who access to actual sources. It's not like much valuable content would be lost. Having red links instead of blue links can be an encouragement to look for sufficient material from which to write an informative article for our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, here we disagree. Firstly, I think a lot will be lost and secondly, there is a much bigger possibility that an article will get expanded than written anew, esppecially with a very discouraging notice that it has been deleted in the past. Wikipedia is not finished. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- And, similarly, nothing will prevent those articles from being rewritten/recreated by people who access to actual sources. It's not like much valuable content would be lost. Having red links instead of blue links can be an encouragement to look for sufficient material from which to write an informative article for our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Yes and all I am saying is that the assuption is proper for Croatia and probably for most of the other countries and that despite that there will be a real possibility for all of the articles to be deleted, because (as the user above nicely said) noone is expecting people (unpaid volunteers) to do such international travel (on short term notice, one week). Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- No one is saying that we should delete all the articles. What we're saying is that assumption that you're automatically notable because you competed in the Olympic games should be removed. That's all. Nigej (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "And expecting people (unpaid volunteers) to do international travel (on short term notice, one week) to substantiate the possible notability of some random athlete from half a century ago is well and above the usual requirements - frankly, it's comical." My point exactly and still people have no problem of by the way apathetically voting about such proposal. And have you looked at the articles Cycling at the olympics at all? e.g. Cycling at the 1932 Summer Olympics, look at participating countries, Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden and United States. Are you saying those countries had much less developed sports journalism than Croatia? Yes, there is an odd athlete here and there, but removing this policy and deleting all the articles just because of that would be highly counterprodutive. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and how bloody suprising, each and every single one of these articles was created by the usual suspect. I'd almost be tempted to create a speedy deletion criteria "Articles created by Lugnuts which are only based on databases"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- "noone would bother to go to Croatia to a library to present that" you mean "the creator of the article did not bother doing the most basic thing, which is looking for sources BEFORE writing it"? And expecting people (unpaid volunteers) to do international travel (on short term notice, one week) to substantiate the possible notability of some random athlete from half a century ago is well and above the usual requirements - frankly, it's comical. And even if it might be the case for Croatia or a few other countries were "sports journalism was relatively well developped", that would still mean that most of these athletes from other countries are unlikely to meet GNG - hence, their shouldn't be an unwarranted presumption; and athletes which do meet the GNG will be kept no matter what, so there's no problem here. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I did not mention it, because it is not true. I can speak for Croatia, for the athletes such as August Prosenik, Đuro Dukanović, Antun Banek, Stjepan Ljubić etc. there is enough inforamtion in old sports books and newspapers I have read. They were huge stars back then and Croatian sports journalism was relatively well develepod at the time. But if someone was to put them on Afd, they would probably be deleted, because in 7 days noone would bother to go to Croatia to a library to present that. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- The additional fact which you curiously do not mention is that for older athletes, coverage is nowhere near as prevalent as today (one could say that at the very least, this is simply because publishing something in a print newspaper way back then took more time, effort, and money [hence limited space] than in the current internet era; although that is likely only part of the solution...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per RandomCanadian. BilledMammal (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Poor predictor of notability. Nigej (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose if singled out for removal. Competition in the Olympics may be equivalent to competition in the UCI World Tour, Grand Tour or Monument, UCI World Championships, or UCI World Cup (for men) and UCI Women's team, UCI World Championships, or UCI World Cup (for women). Similar events should be treated similarly. --Enos733 (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Completely agree. It is often easier to compete on an Grand Tour or a Monument (especially as a part of invited UCI ProTeams) than to qualify for Olympics (128 cyclists competed at the last road race, while Tour alone had 184 competitors, let alone Giro, Vuelta, Monuments etc. Therefore the proposal is totally biased also in that way. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 10:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- If simple participation in those events is equally unreliable as an indicator of presumed notability, they should also be removed (and replaced with achievement-based criteria, e.g. top x finishers). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support we need to stop treating merely being in a competition as a sign of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 13:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; simple participation at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support: It's well proven by now that mere participation does not reliably indicate that a subject can meet the GNG. Being a "great achievement" is not only entirely in the eyes of the beholder, but is nowhere found in any notability criterion on Wikipedia. Ravenswing 04:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
- Comment People are porbably right that this is not much easier than being in a grand tour. Which is why we need to stop treating entry in the Tour de France as a default sign of notablity. I have seen too many articles on tour de France comepetitors that were one sentance, telling us only birth year, death year, and that they were in the tour, and sourced only to some sports database, to believe in any way that merely being in that race is a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Equestrian sport
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in equestrian sport at the Olympics here
- Support. The general Olympic guideline is appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Cbl62 (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose (if singled out). The guidelines also say participation in the Pan American Games or the FEI World Equestrian Games (WEG) meets the criteria. The Olympics may be similar to the other events and should be treated similarly. --Enos733 (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If simple participation in those events is equally unreliable as an indicator of presumed notability, they should also be removed (and replaced with achievement-based criteria). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - the listing of other events doesn't mean that participation in the Olympics is good indicator of notability, and per the former general discussion, it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support being an Olympian per se is not a sign of notability. I am unconvinced even all medalists are, but a fairly high percentage is. I think we do need to consider scrapping some other participation type notability as well. However we should not keep a really bad criteria just because there are other bad criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; the notability of medallists in early Olympic equestrian events is questionable (indeed early Olympic equestrians are almost never notable for their equestrianism) making simple participation a completely unreliable indicator of presumed notability. If the criteria of simple participation in other events is similarly unreliable, they should be removed as well. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Nosferattus (talk) 03:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support It's important to remember what the question is here rather than just restating the result of the previous RfC, which explicitly declined to address these sport-specific SNGs. The question is whether participating in the Olympics, in this particular sport, and not in general, is a good guide to notability. In this case I do not believe it is as equestrian does not receive the wide coverage that some other sports do. Smartyllama (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support LibStar (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
Figure skating
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in figure skating at the Olympics here
Comment- I would like to see this tested. The sport is one of the Olympic “glamour sports” to the point where I could conceivably see all competitors who make the Olympics being notable, but I’d like to see the data. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Supportfor Olympics prior to 1992; from 1992 onwards participation in figure skating is an excellent predictor of notability, but prior to then we start to see a significant percentage of figure skaters receiving only passing mentions instead of significant coverage. BilledMammal (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- What is the magic about 1992? What is significant about that year vs. 1988 or 1972 or any other date? Seems very arbitrary. Rikster2 (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't read fully into this - although what I have suggests that the concept of "changing media coverage of sport" is sufficiently notable to warrant an article - but it appears to relate to a changing media environment in the late 1980's and early 1990's. In particular, the commercialization of media, the concentration of media, and the connection between media and sports are all noted as having increased around that time, with a consequence of that being increased coverage of sports. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, unless you have some data that points to a certain cutoff, perhaps you should refrain from putting a year out there as a formal suggestion. My point is that for a select few sports, the Olympics are pretty clearly the pinnacle. I believe gymnastics and figure skating (for example) have been pretty heavily consumed worldwide for quite some time. But that’s why I ask for data. Rikster2 (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- (ce) The dates came from a review of figure skaters who competed in the various years, and athletes who competed in the various years. The explanation came because you asked why they were the same, and I was curious enough to look into it. BilledMammal (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do you have a link to this? I ask because as someone who researches articles for historical sports figures frequently there has been heavy coverage of sport for much longer than that - it’s just less of it is on-line. But if you have a study or article that puts some numbers or data of the issue I’d be open to a change of mind. But until then, 1992 just feels like a year pulled out of the air. Rikster2 (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support in general; while there is more coverage after 1992, I have been convinced that there is no reason to increase the complexity of the guidelines by adding exceptions. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support without any exceptions. Nigej (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose if singled out. The guideline also says that participation in at an ISU senior World Figure Skating Championships, or in the free skate of the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, European Figure Skating Championships, or Four Continents Figure Skating Championships is sufficient. The Olympics is similar to these other championship events and should be treated similarly. --Enos733 (talk) 18:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If simple participation in those events is equally unreliable as an indicator of presumed notability, they should also be removed (and replaced with achievement-based criteria). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support we clearly agreed that only medalists at the Olympics are notable. We should probably scrap the other participation crieria as well, but we cannot avoid fixing one problem just because we are not fixing all problems at once. Other stuff exists is a horrible arguments. Especially when it is not paired with any showing that this is an actual sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; simple participation at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Figure skating is one of the few sports where participating at the Olympics is a good bar for notability. Maybe do like for the World Championships and require them to reach the free skate, but don't eliminate it entirely. Smartyllama (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Figure skating is a sport where children are being subject to abuse and forced use of puberty blocking drugs to allow them to compete in the Olympics. We should not add to the exploitation of minors by creating more articles on these people, and adding to the reward incentives accruing to the unethical coaches who are carrying on these activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- None of this has anything to do with whether the athletes are notable or not. I think it is rather offensive to suggest people creating articles are adding "to the exploitation of minors". NemesisAT (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, what is offensive is how people look the other way at the abuse of minors. There is no evidence there is significant coverage for every competitor in figure skating. Actua;ly all the more so because the last few cycles really only competitors from one nation have even been considered possible medalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nonsense; what is offensive are people implying that others are implicit in child abuse because we don't agree with the tactics of their unsupported crusades. Wikipedia is still not here to right great wrongs. There are countless thousands of articles on reprehensible people, reprehensible concepts and reprehensible deeds. But if you truly want an encyclopedia that bases its content on (alleged) moral grounds, you're in luck: there is one. It doesn't actually have a figure skating article, though, unless you count its leading hit for the search term "figure skating" -- [1] Ravenswing 05:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, what is offensive is how people look the other way at the abuse of minors. There is no evidence there is significant coverage for every competitor in figure skating. Actua;ly all the more so because the last few cycles really only competitors from one nation have even been considered possible medalists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- None of this has anything to do with whether the athletes are notable or not. I think it is rather offensive to suggest people creating articles are adding "to the exploitation of minors". NemesisAT (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Figure skating is a sport where children are being subject to abuse and forced use of puberty blocking drugs to allow them to compete in the Olympics. We should not add to the exploitation of minors by creating more articles on these people, and adding to the reward incentives accruing to the unethical coaches who are carrying on these activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
Gymnastics
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in gymnastics at the Olympics here
Comment- I would like to see this tested. The sport is one of the Olympic “glamour sports” to the point where I could conceivably see all competitors who make the Olympics being notable, but I’d like to see the data. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support The reality is that there's lots of competitors making up the numbers, with no prospect of success. Nigej (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- What does that mean though? Success in the Olympics doesn’t have any bearing on WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 01:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Success leads to significant coverage; in general, simple participation does not. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose If singled out. The guideline also mentions participation in the World Championships. Like events should be treated alike. --Enos733 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- If simple participation at the worlds is equally unreliable, it should also be removed (and replaced with achievement based criteria, e.g. finalists). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - the listing of other events doesn't mean that participation in the Olympics is good indicator of notability, and per the former general discussion, it is not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support We need to follow the Olympics notability guideline. We need to remove other places where we treat mere participation as a sign of notability, but that is a seperate issue to deal with seperately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; simple participation at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
Rugby union
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in rugby union at the Olympics here
- Support. Participation in team sports at the Olympics does not reliably predict sufficient coverage to write an article, due to the number of individuals involved and the grouped results. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. The general Olympic guideline is appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Suport applying the same standard across the board to the Olympics. It should be applied with particular force to team sports. Cbl62 (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. MER-C 12:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is a clear need, especailly since it is a team sport. Also, for Olympics that had less than 5 Rugby teams, we should only consider those on the gold winning team to come under the medalists rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; participation in team sports at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Team sport per above. Nosferattus (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
Triathlon
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Survey
- Please place !votes regarding participation in triathlon at the Olympics here
- Support. The general Olympic guideline is appropriate. Rikster2 (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. --Enos733 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Per the previous general discussion, participation in the Olympics is not a good indicator of notability, especially for sports that receive less coverage such as triathlon. BilledMammal (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Participation in the Olympics is not a good indicator of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support; simple participation at the Olympics is not a reliable indicator of presumed notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Nosferattus (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
Combined survey
- Please place !votes here if you are in favour of the same result, whether "support" or "oppose", for every one of the preceding sports. Added per comments by @Rikster2 and Cbl62: in the general discussion.
General discussion
- As proposals as still being made, and there have been questions about why subproposal three doesn't cover Olympic participation, I believe it is appropriate to open this discussion. The format should also resolve the WP:TRAINWRECK concerns from the last time it was opened. BilledMammal (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion - just pull out any references to the Olympics on all SNGs since this is expressly covered elsewhere. Rikster2 (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I tried that. It is now listed as the example of a non-deletion WP:TRAINWRECK. BilledMammal (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd suggest mentioning these exceptions in NOLYMPIC until they are formally repealed. I tried to mention them but was reverted. It's a clarity issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Restored. On reflection, that edit makes sense. BilledMammal (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I support getting rid of Olympic participation across the board as to all sports. I also think this subproposal is overly complex and could be rephrased so as to allow a single vote on all forms of Olympic participation. Cbl62 (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is really just picking at the details of the guideline, and isn't really relevant to the issue of how NSPORTS fits in with other guidelines. --Michig (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment We should not remove the "participation at the Olympics" from the guidance if "participation at X event" remains. For many, if not most sports, the Olympics is the pinnacle of competition, and if participation at a perceived "lesser" competition remains, I think we are doing a disservice to the project. --Enos733 (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Overall this is true, however we have to start fixing things somewhere. This is a clear case where we can justify the cahnge. Also at least in the 1911-1929 time frame, the source of sub-stub articles based only on a source databse is 1-Olympians, 2-Cricket articles 3-Rugby articles 4-Association football articles 5-baseball articles, 6-clcling article 7-a few American football articles and 8-maybe even a smaller number of Baseball articles. So for that time period only the cycling ones come into play where someone has argued there is a problem. However we should not fail to fix a problem just because there are other problems. That is the other stuff exists arguement we try to avoid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am ok with removal of other participation requirements as well (as appropriate and as tested). I just can't support removing Olympic participation when participating in the Olympics is more difficult than participation in other events. --Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Your supposition simply isn't true outside of the leading nations in any given sport, where athletes in the world's top-20 or even top-10 commonly miss out on the Olympics. For athletes from elsewhere in the world, where competition in that sport is not great, it is far easier to get to the Olympics than other major world events. As a result, the Olympics is awash with completely uncompetitive participants who would not get close to gaining entry for other major events. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am ok with removal of other participation requirements as well (as appropriate and as tested). I just can't support removing Olympic participation when participating in the Olympics is more difficult than participation in other events. --Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment We also need to address participation in the Olympics arts competitions. Which considering how well they were covered, the level of notability of the participants and other things, I am thinking do not show at all that someone is notable. Most of our articles on such people are like this Raphaël Van Dorpe, which has one non-significant mention, and no sustained coverage. Most of them do show up in some massive databases on artists, but at least on my first glance I at a few over the last 2 months I have not been seeing anything that comes close to showing significant coverage. I think I will also post a note on a Wikipedia art related project page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I think we can all see that this is not a perfect solution. It reminds me of the old joke: "How to I get to x?" answer: "Well, I wouldn't start from here". We are where we are, and attempts to start from a clean sheet of paper have failed, so this piecemeal approach is the only practical way forward. We may temporarily move to a more illogical position than we had before in certain aspects, but that will trigger further discussions. Nigej (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Hector Dyer is an article on an Olympic medalist that has 0 sources. Maybe if people had not spent so much time on creating articles on every person in every competition, even those who did not finish, than maybe people would have devoted the resources to find actual sources on a person like Dyer. Or maybe there are not actually sources on Dyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Something is clearly wrong when people ignore a total lack of GNG, an administator weighs the actual sourcing and arguments, and then gets attacked for it as is happening here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 16.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nice to see a closer do what they're supposed to do. The main reason that NFOOTY has been an "untouchable" area, is the usual mass turnout from that side, all with the same point to make, and a closer not prepared to weigh the arguments rather than the votes. Nigej (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
- 'Comment It's important to remember what the question is here, rather than just restating the result of the prior RfC, which explicitly declined to answer the question of the sport-specific SNGs. The question is solely whether Olympic participation in a particular sport should be considered a guide to notability for that sport. Views of Olympic participation in general as a guide to notability are irrelevant - I see people mentioning completely different sports in this discussion such as discussing modern pentathlon AFDs under athletics/track & field and that's all irrelevant to the task at hand. Smartyllama (talk) 13:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, the Olympics are awash with sub-standard athletes who are only there because their country wants to be represented. This was even more true before 1990 or so when they started to tighten a little bit the standards for participation, so the notion that any competitor in the Olympics who does not medal, or who medals by default in a competition with less than 4 competitors, or who medals as part of a team, is default notable is just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- This likely varies considerably from sport to sport (as well as period to period, as you imply), but the standards for participation are a pretty significant requirement, in the cases I'm familiar. Having to 'get the Olympic qualifying time' has been the case in athletics track events for a long time, for example. So those are objective achievements in themselves, to a degree. Now granted those in turn have exceptions made for them for sports-developmental reasons, so there's the further issue of how to deal with those. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, the Olympics are awash with sub-standard athletes who are only there because their country wants to be represented. This was even more true before 1990 or so when they started to tighten a little bit the standards for participation, so the notion that any competitor in the Olympics who does not medal, or who medals by default in a competition with less than 4 competitors, or who medals as part of a team, is default notable is just plain false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Removing a loophole in NFOOTBALL
"The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." should be removed, because
- the text is currently redundant (with the usual formula "Association football (soccer) figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:"
- and at odds with the rest of the guideline: as it incorrectly implies that people who meet this are automatically guaranteed an article (despite the lead saying that "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."; and further saying that the criteria only help determine whether it is likely that subjects will have received GNG)
- and that there are multiple examples of practical exceptions where players who meet NFOOTBALL have not, actually, "received significant coverage".
Would anybody object? This wouldn't really change the fundamental meaning of the guideline (nor how it should be used in practice), just harmonise it with the rest, and avoid wikilawyering about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's redundant with the first sentence of WP:NSPORTS, and implicit with any specific-sport guidance on that page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- Also, the second point of NFOOTY says
"Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable."
which contradicts the "presumed notable" language at the top of the section. I propose that we simply list the criteria that are needed to presume notability without further commentary. –dlthewave ☎ 13:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC) - it's not a loophole, but agree it can be confusing, so remove it. GiantSnowman 14:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Coach Notability
Hi all, Is there any specific rules while creating articles for cricket coach? Fade258 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say for if they were the first team coach for First Class teams. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Fade258: The criterion for inclusion is WP:GNG, so you should strive for that right from the beginning. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NCRIC has no criteria for coaches, so refer to WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Creation or foundation of NSPORTS
I have wondered why this guideline was created, founded, or established in the first place. Lately, I've seen proposal after proposal, drama after drama, etc over this guideline and how to expand or limit library of sports figures. Proposal to demote it into an essay has failed. I've not seen it demoted to a supplementary either. Actually, I've barely followed sports, and I'm acquainted with most famous sports figures like Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kobe Bryant, Tiger Woods, Tom Brady.... Rarely have I been familiar with lesser-known figures. Well, I created Tom Babson, a coach, mostly because he was seen in a sitcom Cheers. I still don't know how long the NSPORTS will last. --George Ho (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- As far as I can work out this is the earliest sportsperson notability criteria. Cheers, Number 57 21:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
- Here's the talk page discussion that was mentioned in the edit 57 provided. It interested me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Proposal to clarify Olympic Medalling as an indicator of notability
This RFC has two questions that can be answered separately, asking whether:
- Winning a medal in a competition with less than four competitors or teams (ie, when all participants receive a medal) is not an indicator of presumed notability
- Winning a medal as part of a team is not an indicator of presumed notability
04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Low participation competitions
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should NOLYMPICS be clarified to state that winning a medal in a competition with less than four competitors or teams is not an indicator of presumed notability?
- Survey
- Please place !votes here
- Support. If everyone receives a medal, then it is a participation award, not an indicator of success or the coverage required for notability that often comes with success. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support The recently discussed Rugby union at the 1908 Summer Olympics is a prime example. There were only two teams and Britain was represented by the Cornish county side who had won the previous season's 1907–08 Rugby Union County Championship. In this instance too there was only 1 silver medal so from a pedantic point of view, only 1 of the 15 Cornish players actually got a medal. The idea that playing in this game represents the pinnacle of sporting achievement is clearly nonsense. Nigej (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Olympics games are highly recognized games in the world with the number of participants are participated. Fade258 (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support as common sense. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. This should be obvious. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Such medalists may still be notable under GNG, but a presumption of such seems unwise. Cbl62 (talk) 16:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - no idea what the numbers look like for this situation (so not sure the impact is worth making the guideline longer) but makes sense to not presume notability here. Rikster2 (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support If you are going to win a medal by default, winning a medal is not a sign of notability at all. That we even have to say this is crazy. We also need to make it clearer that even if someone won a medal we still need to actually find examples of significant coverage to create an article, not just claim that they exist somewhere but we cannot access them. The burden needs to be put on people to find signficant coverage sources before they are allowed to create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- SNOW support - Obviously, notability should not be based on a participation award. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support - The whole point of using medals as a mark of notability is to employ their function as awards handed out to remarkable individuals and teams. When medals don't work that way, but more like a certificate of participation, they can't be solely relied upon to establish a subject's notability. PraiseVivec (talk) 10:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support As long as it is explicit that participation in events with four or more competitors is not enough for presumption of notability (i.e. that coming fourth of ten =/= necessary notable). If that is not explicit, then we are creating a scenario where the achievement of only representing your nation at the Olympics (which is a fairly notable achievement, at least now) can be assumed to be notable, and winning a medal in a high-participation event is obviously notable, but getting a medal in a low-participation event explicitly is not assumed to be notable, even though the achievement is equal (bronze) or greater (gold) than just competing. Perhaps there could also be some exception on winning gold: you still had to come first, even if only against one competitor. Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. MER-C 14:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support -- too many instances of this in early Olympics, and our policy needs to account for that. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion- Please place general comments here
- I am curious how many instances of this exist - anyone know? Rikster2 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Rikster2: Cricket and Football at the 1900 Summer Olympics are prime examples. Football at the 1904 Summer Olympics shows this wasn't limited to one year only. It is likely that most examples are from early on, but I wouldn't be surprised if this also maybe touched some events of the 1980 Summer Olympics (due to the boycott of the games that year). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I am reading a book on Amateurism in the Olympics, and that book says that the medals were not given out until the 1904 Olympics. A lot of pre-World War I informaiton on Olympics is later re-writers to try and make them look like more noted and international competitions they really were to create a mythos that the Olympics sprung fully forned out of the head of a Frenchman in 1896, sort of like how Athena sprung fully formed out of the head of Zeus. We need to hold every article to passing GNG on its own. At least in the 1920s and 1930s it does not seem that we regularly get GNG level coverage even on medalists, so I am beginning to question if the presumption of medalist notability makes any sense at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think it is time to SNOW-close this. BilledMammal (talk) 10:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Team competitions
Should NOLYMPICS be clarified to state that winning a medal as part of a team with more than two members is not an indicator of presumed notability? Note that this would not apply to relay events in athletics and swimming, or team gymnastics after 1952.
Survey
- Please place !votes here
- Support. Team sports differ from individual sports in that the coverage is often focused on the team, not the individuals, and so winning a team event is not an effective indicator of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per above. Generally for team events, Olympic coverage is focused around the team. While individual members can get some coverage, this is rarely at an in-depth level. Also the argument that they must have been notable to get into a team that won a medal, is much weaker for team events than for individual/pairs events. Nigej (talk) 07:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose unless refined. I generally like this concept, but it needs some refinement. It makes no sense to presume notability for every member of teams (including backup players) in field hockey, volleyball, football, softball, hockey, etc. But there are exceptions. For example, medaling in the team gymnastics competition likely warrants a presumption of notability for all five or six team members. Also, does this proposal cover relay races such as the 4x100 track relay or 4x100 swimming medley relay? Those are glamour events where winning a medal would likely warrant the presumption of notability. If we could refine this a bit, I'd be a supporter. Cbl62 (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Discussion of which teams to continue to presume notability
|
---|
|
- Oppose as drafted, needs far more careful consideration and crafting. GiantSnowman 14:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above. Also without the individuals in the team, the team would not be able to compete, and therefore unable to win. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support. In general, team members should not be granted the presumption of notability. Any concerns with specific sports, such as those identified above, are not relevant to the general Olympic guideline and can be easily addressed by amendments/additions to the relevant sport specific guidelines; there is no need for exceptions to be listed in the general guideline. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support with the clarification regarding relay events (track/swimming) and gymnastics. Cbl62 (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - the wording is too clumsy I'm afraid. Too many caveats or exclusions. I can see the general idea, but there's rather too much "except for..." stuff here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- As long as the wording that goes into the guideline matches the details of the proposal, there is no reason we need need to use my clumsy wording - and while there are benefits to a simple proposal, it seems that a few exclusions are needed to make a consensus likely. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is the way in which the exclusions seem to be culturally specific. For example, Norwegians in team biathlon events or Germans in bobsleighs are both likely to generate more than enough coverage to suggest notability. The same is probably true of Canadian curlers, whereas I'm much less certain what we'd find for the Finnish 4x200m freestyle relay team from 1960, for example. It seems like we're just saying athletics and swimming because we think they're important. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- As part of agreeing to Cbl62's request, I reviewed our articles on those who won medals in relay events in athletics and swimming, and found that even when we consider the earliest Olympics almost all medallists are already demonstrated to meet WP:GNG, regardless of country - based on that, it appears likely that the rest are also notable. I also note that this exception would only applies to medallists; Finland's 4x200m freestyle team in the 1960 Olympics won't receive presumed notability, because they didn't medal. BilledMammal (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think part of the problem is the way in which the exclusions seem to be culturally specific. For example, Norwegians in team biathlon events or Germans in bobsleighs are both likely to generate more than enough coverage to suggest notability. The same is probably true of Canadian curlers, whereas I'm much less certain what we'd find for the Finnish 4x200m freestyle relay team from 1960, for example. It seems like we're just saying athletics and swimming because we think they're important. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- As long as the wording that goes into the guideline matches the details of the proposal, there is no reason we need need to use my clumsy wording - and while there are benefits to a simple proposal, it seems that a few exclusions are needed to make a consensus likely. BilledMammal (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose - but I could maybe be convinced if some actual data were presented. The Olympic guideline has already been scaled back immensely. Rikster2 (talk) 16:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Since I think one of the original NPORTS subproposals were improperly closed I am going to be even more specific in my objections to this for the benefit of the closer. We had a very well attended RFC for WP:NOLYMPICS in October that cut that guideline from all competitors being presumed notable to just medalists, which probably reduced the guideline by 80%. There have been zero (ZERO) facts or data presented that show team competitors should be treated differently than the new general guidance, or if they should be where that bar should be distinct from other competitors. I would like to ensure that the closer does not take an action based on the "gut feelings" of a few folks being presented as if they were facts. That would not be good or unbiased administration. Rikster2 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Neutral, open to more refined criteria While this should probably be done for the larger team sports (those like football or rugby), it is more dubious for the smaller ones. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Data is needed to show whether most athletes who medal in a team sport do not receive significant coverage, rather than a blanket statement. --Enos733 (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary. We should be requiring data to support retention of team/squad members for all Olympic sports. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- No, the editor is suggesting a further change to a guideline that was reduced by probably 70-80% only recently. It seems a fair request to see some data that shows this is a problem that actually needs to be solved with further caveats in what is a fairly simple and easy to follow guideline as it is. And we are not talking about all team members of all Olympic sports - we are talking about medalists Rikster2 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- On the contrary. We should be requiring data to support retention of team/squad members for all Olympic sports. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Oddly-specific exclusions will add to confusion. NemesisAT (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support in principle. Specific exclusions can be hammered out later. JoelleJay (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose this is an attempt at scope creep, the RFC on this had consensus that Olympic medallists are presumed notable, abd I see no evidence that in general, they are not (the only example given above is for some widely specific competition 100 years ago). Joseph2302 (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per NemesisAT. Too specific. We can look at athletes case-by-case if they meet the letter of the law but do not appear to have sufficient sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Note that I would support an alternative proposal to include a warning that "Winning a medal while participating in some Olympic team sports (such as football or rugby) is not as likely to be a trustworthy indicator of significant coverage as for others." This would get the message across that more caution is advised when dealing with such events (thus pleasing those who wish for the guidelines to be more true to fact), without formally disqualifying anybody (thus pleasing those who are afraid of a hypothetical mass-deletion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support In many cases team members are only a little subbed, and they will often get almost no coverage. Obviously if significant source coverage exists we will have an article, but too many of these people get no coverage. Also, in some team sports, especially before 1990, those in the Olympics got very little coverage and were not really considered to be at the top of the game. There is no general indication that being on a medaling team changes this situation from the general status of such team memebers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose if something has that many caveats then it's not a very useful rule of thumb. It might make more sense if the limit on the number of members was raised. I can understand that for a team of 10 members individual members might not get much coverage, but I would expect members of a team of 3 to get much more. Hut 8.5 12:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose no evidence given that the newly developed rules are too lax and too many caveats to make a sensible rule from. Spike 'em (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Spike 'em. A Simple Cricket Fan (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC) — A Simple Cricket Fan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Discussion- Please place general comments here
- I think I need some clarification as to what a "team" is, before voting. Tennis doubles, rowing four, rowing eight? Also some team events are just individual events where the team score is the sum of the individual competitors' scores, while others are genuine team events. Nigej (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Updated; most dual events should not be considered as team for the purpose of this question. I've left events that sum individual competitors' scores in, as they normally share the same issues as the other team sports. BilledMammal (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Adjusted per Cbl62; pinging all !voters so far: @Nigej, Cbl62, GiantSnowman, and Lugnuts:. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think it may be worth increasing the 3 to 10, say. There may be more consensus at that level and it would cover the gymnast teams noted above, for instance, and the team sports (I assume were talking about a squad size rather than players on the pitch). I know that this covers a lot less athletes than the current proposal but given how much NOLY has been tightened already I think a combination of the two proposals would provide useful clarity. An alternative would be to restrict this proposal it to silver+bronze only. Nigej (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I think there isn't much point at that level; it wouldn't even cover the tug of war teams. I think this level should be able to find a consensus, with the two exclusions provided for the relay events. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I feel like this really needs to be considered further before it’s implemented. I focus mainly on a team sport that competes in the Olympics (basketball). I come from a country that has medaled in the sport every competition except 1980. I’ve done pretty extensive work on US Olympic articles and what I have found is that every one of those athletes very clearly meets the GNG bar, including the 1936 team that came before a national professional league existed (helps that at least two books have been written about that team in addition to significant chapters in at least one other). The teams that medal in the sport are generally the ones where it is popular so those players either get coverage for the Olympics itself or their amateur and/or professional careers. I’d be particularly surprised if medalists from the 1970s or later don’t meet the GNG threshold. These players typically come from the top club teams in their regions (or in the case of North American athletes, college). Not saying (for example) water polo players necessarily get that same coverage, just giving my perspective and why I am skeptical of this proposal unless it is specifically tested. In fact, if this were inserted into WP:NOLYMPIC, I feel like I’d have to push to add an Olympic medalist criteria into WP:NBASKETBALL - even though I generally think the sports should be subservient to the Olympic guideline. Rikster2 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- I would also point out that if the Olympic guideline is changed to remove medalists from teams that the proposal about removing the Olympics from the sport-specific guidelines must be revisited. I know my input was made assuming the current Olympics guideline and assume most others’ input is the same. This sub proposal would change the assumptions Rikster2 (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't the vast majority of Olympic medalling basketball players meet NBASKETBALL individually without needing to meet NOLY anyway? And in the countries where club basketball is not as popular it's reasonable not to presume GNG exists for each Olympic player. So this wouldn't really change anything for athletes from either group, other than I guess the pre-pro league US players who would now need to show GNG is met if they don't meet any other NSPORT criterion -- which seems pretty easy to work with. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- They would. But I would like to see a compelling argument why team sportspeople who win medals should have a different standard than individual medalists. So far, none has been put forth. Why the carve-out - is there data that shows this is an issue that would lead us to going a different direction than the overall WP:NOLYMPICS guideline? If not, keep it simple and don’t add a bunch of caveats. But I would say, countries where club basketball is not as popular generally don’t medal. That’s the point. The countries that medal in team sports tend to support those sports. That’s why their top athletes play them. Rikster2 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Why 2 or 4 team members? What about sports like rowing where there are singles, pairs and doubles, quads and fours, and eights? Would you include all medalists but the last, which is generally seen as the blue riband event? Spike 'em (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- If there is a consensus against this, it might be appropriate to go sport-by-sport. In particular, gymnastics needs to be removed due to the situation in the early years. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
General Discussion
- I feel that any changes to NSPORT should wait until the conclusion of the larger discussion of the guideline. I still do not understand the overall push that will lead to the deletion of many biographies of athletes WP:NOTPAPER. As a volunteer project, the editors lead the way in its development, and while there are reasons to make sure that what is written is verifiable, we should start with the presumption that an Olympic medal is a "well-known and significant award or honor" (see WP:ANYBIO). --Enos733 (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- It would probably be wise for User:BilledMammal to stop making new recommendations and let some things get resolved. It is contributing to a WP:TRAINWRECK Rikster2 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- There won't be a mass deletion, that's missing the point. What we're trying to get to is a definition of notability in the sports area that will discourage (or at least, not encourage) the creation of new articles for non-notable people. Nigej (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Clearly there will not be mass deletions. In October we decided non-medalists were at the Olympics were not notable, no one even tried to create an Olympic participant AfD until late December, and even though there are probably in excess of 150,000 articles in Wikipedia on Olympians who did not medal, some of whom do pass other notability guidelines but a very large number of them do not, I suspect we currently have less than 20 deletion discussions on Olympic competitors, maybe even less than 10. I can pretty much at random find hundreds if not thousands of those articles sourced only to the sportsreference.com database. For the 1936 Egyptian men's basketball team I figured out that 6 of the 7 articles were all created by the same user, and creating those 6 articles took a total of 10 minutes combined. Nor is there much evidence those articles have been improved since. Nor is that an isolated incident.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Chess Player notability
Hi all. Is there any guidelines for Chess player? If not then can we make the guidelines. Fade258 (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see the necessity for such a guideline. All Chess World Champions, and likely all challengers (back from the 19th century to today), already have an (usually quite decent) article, and that's the only criteria which would make sense to me. "All GMs" certainly wouldn't be an appropriate indicator of being notable; and otherwise I very much doubt there's another criteria in between those two which would make sense either (the only thing that comes to mind is "winners of [some] high-level/elite tournaments", but listing all those which qualify would at best be subjective and at worst pure instruction creep; and in any case the vast majority likely already have an article anyway). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with RandomCanadian. In my purely-anecdotal experience as an amateur and fan of the game, chess coverage tends to be event-based rather than rank-based (i.e., people don't suddenly start writing about you when you hit GM), and the biggest events are already covered for. I don't think any guideline that expands on what we have now would truly be an indicator of significant coverage for those under it. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is ok but on what basic do we assume that any Chess competition is high level competition? Fade258 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- "We don't assume any such thing" would be my reply. High-level competitions are likely to get WP:SIGCOV, and their winners (many of whom are amongst the best chess players around and have an article already anyways) maybe as well, but that's about it, and there's no need for a separate criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- That is ok but on what basic do we assume that any Chess competition is high level competition? Fade258 (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Is chess considered a sport? From what I know, it's been a centuries-old classic strategic board game. Chess doesn't have the physical and mental abilities that would be considered typically a sport. Furthermore, chess was discussed four years ago. BTW, as I just found out, the WP:WikiProject Chess established its own guidelines. George Ho (talk) 21:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Chess certainly does have (and then a bit more) a requirement for significant mental abilities - and long games can be not only psychologically but also physically draining. But that's besides the point. Anyways, Wikiproject guidelines are not much more than essays and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the vast majority of cases, and while they might be indicative of something, if they are not listed here, it's for probably good reasons. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh darn! Either forgot or didn't realize it's categorized a mind sport. BTW, Twister neither has notable players nor is often considered a sport, but it sure requires physical skill. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- @George Ho: And lest we forget, there's also Chess boxing :) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oh darn! Either forgot or didn't realize it's categorized a mind sport. BTW, Twister neither has notable players nor is often considered a sport, but it sure requires physical skill. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- As I said in the previous discussion, whether or not chess guidelines are placed on this page is a social decision, not a categorization one. Wherever is most convenient for interested editors is fine. isaacl (talk) 02:54, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- Chess certainly does have (and then a bit more) a requirement for significant mental abilities - and long games can be not only psychologically but also physically draining. But that's besides the point. Anyways, Wikiproject guidelines are not much more than essays and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in the vast majority of cases, and while they might be indicative of something, if they are not listed here, it's for probably good reasons. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- What's wrong with just doing what we normally do: see if there is enough substantial, independent coverage? Reyk YO! 22:34, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- There've been numerous attempts over the years to shoehorn guidelines for games into NSPORTS, and perhaps those who feel strongly enough over such efforts should attempt to create a WP:NGAMES guideline. This isn't the venue for it. But that being said, there already is a notability guideline covering chess players: the GNG. Those chess players who meet it are considered presumptively notable. Ravenswing 06:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NGAMES is currently limited to video games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- If you look at the category structure the distinction between games and sports is a bit inconsistent. Category:Game players is a subcat of Category:Sports competitors but if you look at Category:Sports competitors by sport you don't find any games. Also while Game players includes board game players (eg chess) and card players (eg poker/bridge) it also includes darts and esports which seems a little odd to me. As to numbers, Chess has about 4,500 biographies, which is the same as Golf and Figure skating. However the number living is less than 60%, which is at the low end of the scale for sports (Cricket and Baseball are also less than 60%) while many sports have a much higher proportion living (the average for all sports is 75%). Nigej (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Kickboxing notability guidelines
Hello,
I've recently suggested changing the notability guidelines for kickboxing and muay thai, as they haven't been updated since 2014. I posted my suggestion on the Task Force talk page, to which all the task force contributors who chose to participate in the discussion agreed. In short, the changes would replace WAKO, WKN and It's Showtime with RISE, ONE and WLF.
The changes I've suggested are as such:
- Prior to March 1, 2022:
- fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (K-1, WMC, ISKA, WAKO-Pro, Glory, It's Showtime, WKN, WBC Muaythai, PKA (through 1986), WKA (through 2000)).
- Have been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source or been a Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champion.
- From March 1, 2022 onward:
- fought for a world title of a major organization or promotion (ISKA, Glory, K-1/Krush, RISE, ONE or WLF).
- Have been ranked in the world top 10 by a major, preferably two, independent publication that meets the definition of a reliable source
- fought for a Lumpinee, Rajadamnern, WMC, WBC Muaythai title, or won the Fighter of the year award.
Organizations which would be considered notable have ten or more kickboxers which are ranked in the top ten by an independent publication, while the muay thai guidelines would remain unchanged for the most part. It is important to note that the champions of organizations which are currently considered "notable" don't even pass the general notability guideline. This would furthermore tighten up the guidelines, as the number of "notable" title would be lowered from 168 to 44.
I thought about going by the WP:BOLD principle, but wanted to hear the opinions of people who aren't associated with the task force. If nobody opposes my suggestion, I will go ahead and update the guidelines on this and the task force's page.
Sincerly, GameRCrom (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- Notability is not temporary, so removing previous leagues to simply start listing more recent entities should be avoided unless necessary. The two questions I have is: A) how many of individuals which meet these criteria have (or do not have an article)? B) how significant are the various achievements - in other words, outside of niche publications, how widely reported are they? it is far more likely some individual will be reported on in a fashion which could contribute to an encyclopedic article if the award/competition/championship they compete[d] in is more widely covered. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- And of course C) why the very specific date cutoff? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:12, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: A) 9 out 11 Krush champions currently have an article, 8 out 10 RISE champions currently have an article, 9 out of 9 ONE champions currently have an article and 8 out of 8 WLF champions currently have an article. All but three FOTY award winners have an article. The majority of individuals which meet the proposed criteria already have an article, i.e. they are already notable.
- B) They are rather widely reported on, as can be see by going though the list of references on the pages of the current champions. I'm not sure how to provide other proof on their coverage.
- C) I went with the precedent established by the MMA Wiki Project. The organizations that I've listed had 10 or more competitors signed which were ranked in the top ten of an independent publication in the six months prior to the month of March.
- Mm. Especially given the ephemeral nature of many of the promotions, as you touch on above, I'd go full radical. Either abolish the guideline altogether (and rely solely on the GNG), or restrict it to the Fighter of the Year/top ten ranking. Alternately, have such a complex (and, after all, somewhat subjective) listing solely as an essay internal to the project, as guidance for authors interested in new article creation in the sport. That would seem easier to manage, in light of the probability that it will need frequent tweaking.
That being said, I appreciate that you're one of the very rare editors who've done the work to verify whether or not your proposal reflects notability in advance of making the proposal. Ravenswing 20:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
- I see, thank you for your input. The loose and changing nature of the sport certainly makes it hard to determine what is notable and what isn't, especially for new users who wish to contribute. Would you be kind enough to expand on what a possible project-internal essay would look like? Would it simply guide new contributors to research which organizations are notable, or would it itself have an ever changing shape depending on which organizations hold the most notable competitors? Or perhaps something else altogether? Thank you kindly, as always, GameRCrom (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Mass destruction of SNGs
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Why is BilledMammal destroying NSPORT?? Govvy (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not destroying, implementing consensus per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3. BilledMammal (talk) 08:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- So, I read that top bit, but it says consensus, but the writing has no precision, it has three spelling mistakes. My reading into that is that it is suggestive, however what you're doing is not helpful what so ever. To abolish those SNGs fails to cover what is an acceptable in allowing stub articles of each subject. This is no improvement, this is going backwards. With no SNGs variants, it's going to just end up as a shit show of what notability is. Clearly no thought has gone into this. Govvy (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- I take it you don't care for SNGs, I might have to retire from editing wikipedia all-together, I needed those SNGs, I am not sure I can be of help now. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- As noted in the close of the RFC, (pending interested contributors formulating acceptable replacements for the removed participation-based criteria) the replacement guideline for determining suitability for an article is GNG – which ultimately needed to be met previously anyway. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh for pity's sake. Are you incapable of using the GNG? (For which I'd call bullshit in any event, seeing as you created a couple dozen articles before NSPORTS was implemented.) Or are you expecting us to swallow that you're incapable of editing Wikipedia if this means of new article creation is lost to you? (For which I'd also call bullshit, seeing as you've created fewer than fifty new articles in four and a half years, a timeframe in which you've made over -- wait for it -- sixteen thousand edits.)
The simple fact is that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have shifted quite a few times over the years, sometimes dramatically. People incapable of accepting that sometimes they're going to be on the losing side of consensus, and that in consequence they need to lose gracefully and soldier on, are poor fits for this encyclopedia. Now you're the best judge of what your time's worth. If you are unable to accept these changes, then good fortune in your next endeavors. Ravenswing 23:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I take it you don't care for SNGs, I might have to retire from editing wikipedia all-together, I needed those SNGs, I am not sure I can be of help now. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well done, @Ravenswing: that's one of the nastiest premature grave dances Ive seen. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- No idea whether it's a grave dance, premature or not; I'm no more a soothsayer than the next editor. But if you're suggesting that I have no use for hyperbole-choked wailing about How! Wikipedia! Will! Be! Destroyed!, combined with threats of ragequitting, because not every editor finds value in two-sentence sub-stubs? You'd be dead on there. Ravenswing 01:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Whether fortunately or unfortunately, subproposal 3 passed -- eliminating participation-based parts of NSPORTS. This means the complete repeal of NGRIDIRON and NFOOTY, among others. It is now incumbent on sports editors to come up with tighter standards and seek consensus for those tighter standards. Cbl62 (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This is a complete clusterfuck. Removing the appearance-based ones without considering what will replace them has left so many anomalies and random fragments of explanations of now missing guidelines. I can't see how this is determined to be consensus either, it seems a no-consensus and hence should not have led to removal of the SNGs.Spike 'em (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Over time it became clear what a problem huge numbers of single-sentence database scrape microstub "biographies" had become. There were thousands and thousands and thousands of them. As the scale of the problem became more evident these articles started routinely being taken to AfD and getting deleted or merged/redirected to lists. It was necessary and inevitable that our guidelines change to reflect these changes in our procedures. As pointed out by Cbl62 it is now up to the various sports wikiprojects to come up with SNGs more balanced than the previous "everything is notable" bilge. Reyk YO! 23:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- While I agree that the participation-based guidelines were too lax and have resulted in too many one-line articles with no hope of expansion, the changes made by BilledMammal to this page are mindless and destructive. Some sports have had their guidelines deleted entirely, others have been left in a nonsensical and unusable state. For example, it appears that the only rugby union players deemed notable are ones who have played at the women's World Cup. I have appealed to the rugby union Wikiproject to come up with some guidance for editors on how to apply GNG specifically to rugby players and coaches, what kind of sources can and can't be used to establish notability etc, but it can't be left as it currently stands. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would like to point out here that, in spite of all the RfC noise to the contrary, WP:NBASIC (not the GNG) is the relevant guideline to apply here. These sports figures are, after all, people. There isn't any policy-compliant way to apply the GNG to people: NBASIC takes its place. Newimpartial (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll note that if the replacement is suitable, I will support it. My goal is to make NSPORT a reliable predictor of notability, and while the current situation is a significant improvement over the previous situation, it needs further improvements, both in terms of tightening criteria that was untouched by #3, and by adding criteria to replace the criteria removed by #3. BilledMammal (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some of them should be reasonably uncontroversial e.g. men at the Rugby World Cup who meet the same criteria as the women listed (and were simply dropped because they used "participate" rather than "finished in top 4"- when replacing with "finished in top 4" would have been a much more sensible change over removing it outright). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I just did something very similar - See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union#Player notability guidelines deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Some of them should be reasonably uncontroversial e.g. men at the Rugby World Cup who meet the same criteria as the women listed (and were simply dropped because they used "participate" rather than "finished in top 4"- when replacing with "finished in top 4" would have been a much more sensible change over removing it outright). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And the upshot isn't, as some editors are obviously doing, to tear at their hair and bay at the moon in anguish. The answer is for editors in the affected projects to get off their backsides and get to work making new criteria, if they just cannot stand the concept of creating new articles for sportspeople solely on the GNG. Because seriously, Nicknack009 -- why would you possibly need "guidance" on how to apply the GNG to rugby figures, as opposed to doing so for any other biographical article on Wikipedia? Can you demonstrate that the player has received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, third-party sources? Then there you go.
Basically, people need to get a grip. BilledMammal is not a malign destructive natural disaster that just sprang up out of nowhere. Many hundreds of editors have been pissed off for a long time now about the excesses of sports bios, and the response of the rejectionists chasing Game High Score through two-sentence sub-stubs off of databases has been to collectively flip them the bird, instead of addressing their entirely legitimate concerns. We should have all seen this was coming, we should have all made shift to tighten the criteria well before now, and we frankly should have all been in agreement with the premise that a full one-seventh of important humans throughout the span of recorded history have been soccer players is an absurd travesty. Ravenswing 15:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Ravenswing: "why would you possibly need "guidance" on how to apply the GNG to rugby figures"? Seriously? The whole reason this discussion is happening is editors don't know how to apply the guidelines and keep making articles for people who aren't notable. The more guidance we can give people, the better, surely? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Seriously. Because someone who can't figure out how to apply the GNG to rugby figures should not be involved in article creation at all. They should be over at the Teahouse or on any of the other efforts on Wikipedia which teach basic editing skills. Or, heck, if the rugby project editors want to take teaching Basic Wikipedia 101 on as well, blessings be upon them. Ravenswing 16:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the NSPORTS SNGs in particular, but
Wikipedia 101
would start with the fact that it is WP:NBASIC, not the WP:GNG, that applies to biographical subjects. Newimpartial (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- NBASIC and GNG are the same thing. Levivich 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, they're not. As one example, the the requirements that the sources be intellectually independent of each other and independent of the subject are specified differently (more precisely, for biographical subjects) in NBASIC than in the GNG. Newimpartial (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- NBASIC and GNG are the same thing. Levivich 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have no interest in the NSPORTS SNGs in particular, but
My thanks to the editors who are implementing the RFC result. Levivich 17:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately it appears to be dominated by editors who (a) think the purpose of rules is to enforce obedience to rules, rather than achieve an objective (which in the case of an encyclopedia, is to be informative), and (b) don't understand sport. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Rewriting the lead
Per the close of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #8, there is a consensus to rewrite the lead to make it clearer; we need to work out how to do this. The specific instructions are as follows:
With that said, editors are generally in favor of rewriting to make the lead clearer. The second part of the proposal complements that and has a clearer consensus. The purpose of a SNG is to give editors guidance on when significant coverage is likely to exist, and clarifying that requirement in the prose will help avoid misuse at AFD (a major concern brought up in the main discussion).
BilledMammal (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- That isn't the purpose of an SNG at all, the purpose of SNGs is to provide an alternative to WP:GNG as laid out at WP:N:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right;
(emphasis mine). NemesisAT (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC) - And per this very article,
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
The closer is clearly mistaken. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- Per WP:N:
The subject-specific notability guidelines generally include verifiable criteria about a topic which show that appropriate sourcing likely exists for that topic. Therefore, topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia.
BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)- Indeed, per that quote, my statement still stands and they're equal to WP:GNG. "Keep, meets GNG" is a frequently used and respected argument in an AfD and thus "Keep per SNG" ought to be too. NemesisAT (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- But it isn't in the case of NSPORT. Community consensus has reaffirmed that many times over, and again at this RFC. Rehashing that argument is not going to help in moving this discussion forward, so please don't persist. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Indeed, per that quote, my statement still stands and they're equal to WP:GNG. "Keep, meets GNG" is a frequently used and respected argument in an AfD and thus "Keep per SNG" ought to be too. NemesisAT (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:N:
- The close also says:
—Bagumba (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)To the extent that the first part of this proposal would create a requirement that a sports biography meet the GNG (i.e., must), there is no consensus.
- Any rewrite should focus on the following important clarification from the closer (found here):
At the top of WP:NSPORTS as of March 6, in bold letters, the guideline said "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" (emphasis original). The word "or" means that either the first, second, or both criteria may be met. Editors may wish that it said "and", some even argued the equivalent of that, but the guideline is clear that meeting an NSPORTS criterion and not the GNG is sufficient. Later, under the heading "Applicable policies and guidelines", NSPORTS says "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". This line was brought up by a supporter which is why I referenced it. Like "or", the word "should" has a meaning. The proposal used "must" which is not the same word and has a different meaning. The supporters arguments claimed to be the correct interpretation, but the interpretation is not consistent with the wording of the guideline. The next question is whether there is sufficient support for it to change the guideline to reflect the obligation ("must") as outlined in the proposal. Obviously not. Supporters generally failed to convince other editors that their interpretation is correct or desirable, with roughly half disagreeing based on the actual guideline. In general, your objections here suffer from the same problem that support arguments had. You may believe this is how NSPORT operates already, and you may have explanations for why "or" and "should" don't have their usual meanings here, but after two months nearly half of participants disagreed with you (your numbers only work if I but your interpretation of the guideline). That's not a consensus, and even if there were a rough consensus it wouldn't be strong enough to make a binding, policy-like requirement. I believe my close for that proposal was an adequate summary of that conflict and the ultimate outcome was no consensus.
Cbl62 (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I think that rather than fighting a dogged rearguard on changes to NSPORT (wasn't a supermajority-style consensus, don't like it, let's cling to the parts of the wording we each like best, etc), it'd ultimately be better to reconstruct a version of the 'presumption of notability' that works operationally differently from either "you have until the end of this AfD, get cracking" on the one hand, or "should doesn't mean must, therefore it means languish forever". Maybe that looks like a grace period; maybe it looks like notability-tagging; maybe it looks like draftification. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally I'd like to see clarity it two areas. Firstly: What is the purpose of NSPORT? I used to think that's its purpose was to enable people without a detailed knowledge of the subject to assess whether an article that had been created was likely to be notable or not. However, it has more recently taken on another role, of defining a list of articles that can (or perhaps "should") be created. Personally I'm not averse to this second use, but perhaps it needs spelling out. The second item is the sentence "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I think there's been a consensus in recent discussions that this has actually not been the case. It should have been true if the criteria were well defined but they haven't been. So I'd like to see a more theoretical sentence like "The intension of the criteria set forth below, is that if an article passes these criteria, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist for an article. However creators of articles should still make substantial efforts to find such sources before creating articles." Nigej (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, something good can come from the close. The removal of the parts of NSPORTS that were the most bloated with low-level leagues will likely force participants in those projects to come up with more realistic guidelines that are truer predictors of GNG compliance. If we accomplish that, it's a good thing, but we should at the same time restore the presumption of notability. The language in the closure regarding sub-proposal 8 that has led to the striking of the presumption of notability is IMO completely unwarranted and unsupported by consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I don't find the term "presumed" that useful. Presumed - "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" seems to me to be pretty much the same as "very likely". However, the fundamental point is that if the criteria are reasonably well defined then no one's going to worry about a few cases at the margins. The problem has been that some criteria were so loose that tens of thousands of articles were created for non-notable people on the basis of criteria here. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would rather focus on the value and purpose of the SNG rather than get quickly lost in the details. I believe the question should be "which sets" (if any) does our community think ought to be complete (recognizing that this is a global project)? And secondly, if a set is worthy to be complete, are there significant sources to justify all people within the set (recognizing there will be people at the margins)? It is my believe that the SNGs help editors decide when an article could be created and (to a lesser extent) when an article could be brought to AFD. I think it is better to have clear(er) lines than spend energy at AFD trying to determine whether the coverage of a subject is sufficient. Enos733 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's consensus for that approach. Clearly the lead is not going to go into the detail of which "sets" "ought" to be complete and if the criteria are well-defined then no one's going to have an issue with them. However, one issue for me is that the lead currently says that the criteria ARE well-defined ("If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") when consensus is that that's not been the case. Nigej (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Nigej that it had not been the case, but with the problematic guidelines having been removed, we can hopefully now rebuild those guidelines in a way that more closely predicts GNG compliance. Cbl62 (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The statement describes the original intent for the criteria to be predictors of suitable coverage satisfying the general notability guideline. The key question is whether or not there continues to be consensus support for using criteria based on their predictive value (and thus any inadequate criteria should be dropped), or if there is consensus for a different approach, such as an achievement-based standard. An achievement-based standard is typically easier to check, but as it is unmoored from the existence of suitable sources upon which a biography can be based, I suspect there will be many who push for a relatively high standard. This could be an issue if editors also prefer that the achievement-based standard set a minimum standard for a sports figure having an article. (My instinctive feeling is that consensus would still consider the general notability guideline applicable for sports figures, but I'm not certain.) isaacl (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The challenge with an achievement-based standard (which I am thinking is like winning the US Open or becoming an All-Star or Hall of Famer), is that those individuals are far from the margin of who the community considers notable (and would pass GNG without a second look). What the SNG can do is help provide advice on the marginal subjects (in both directions). The real question is how should we advise editors about someone like John Christensen (baseball) or someone like La Schelle Tarver? Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- More broadly speaking, an achievement-based standard is a criterion of "has done X", where X could be something like "has made at least Y plate appearances with a minimum on-base percentage of Z or a minimum slugging percentage of W". To my mind, it's in essence the same idea as saying everyone in a given set meets the standard of having an article. I agree with you, though, that it's likely that a general consensus on achievement-based standards would set them quite high and thus be of limited value. At present, I still think a predictor approach is a better match for what the English Wikipedia community can agree upon. (It's different than, say, the guidelines for academics, as there is generally a lot of available suitable coverage for sports figures.) I think there is a possible way forward with the idea that some have proposed of having lists of sports figures that meet a certain lower standard (though I'm not sure about how to manage the logistics). isaacl (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- A question I have with moving toward a statistical-based achievement criteria is that there is no logical connection between the statistical achievement and the subject receiving reliable, independent, published coverage (WP:Source). What I appreciated about the participation criteria was that it was a nice clear line. The problem with the criteria was that athletes in some leagues may not actually have coverage. I think the adoption of proposal 5, by itself, would solve many of the problems (as would have been a closer look at which leagues a presumption of coverage does exist). Enos733 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, regarding a lack of connection, that's exactly what I said. I appreciate that some editors aren't bothered by this, as they think covering everyone who has done X should be the goal. My instinct, though, is that the overall community still holds a consensus view that the general notability guideline must be met for sports figures. isaacl (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- A question I have with moving toward a statistical-based achievement criteria is that there is no logical connection between the statistical achievement and the subject receiving reliable, independent, published coverage (WP:Source). What I appreciated about the participation criteria was that it was a nice clear line. The problem with the criteria was that athletes in some leagues may not actually have coverage. I think the adoption of proposal 5, by itself, would solve many of the problems (as would have been a closer look at which leagues a presumption of coverage does exist). Enos733 (talk) 01:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- More broadly speaking, an achievement-based standard is a criterion of "has done X", where X could be something like "has made at least Y plate appearances with a minimum on-base percentage of Z or a minimum slugging percentage of W". To my mind, it's in essence the same idea as saying everyone in a given set meets the standard of having an article. I agree with you, though, that it's likely that a general consensus on achievement-based standards would set them quite high and thus be of limited value. At present, I still think a predictor approach is a better match for what the English Wikipedia community can agree upon. (It's different than, say, the guidelines for academics, as there is generally a lot of available suitable coverage for sports figures.) I think there is a possible way forward with the idea that some have proposed of having lists of sports figures that meet a certain lower standard (though I'm not sure about how to manage the logistics). isaacl (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- The challenge with an achievement-based standard (which I am thinking is like winning the US Open or becoming an All-Star or Hall of Famer), is that those individuals are far from the margin of who the community considers notable (and would pass GNG without a second look). What the SNG can do is help provide advice on the marginal subjects (in both directions). The real question is how should we advise editors about someone like John Christensen (baseball) or someone like La Schelle Tarver? Enos733 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's consensus for that approach. Clearly the lead is not going to go into the detail of which "sets" "ought" to be complete and if the criteria are well-defined then no one's going to have an issue with them. However, one issue for me is that the lead currently says that the criteria ARE well-defined ("If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.") when consensus is that that's not been the case. Nigej (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Exactly, Nigej. The 'presumption' was (and is, in the lead-section wording that remains) so vague as to cause or allow wildly divergent interpretations. Until we bell the cat of "OK, we presumed them notable (but they 'should' have non-trivial sources), so now what?" we're in danger of endlessly re-fighting over effectively the same small area between the entrenched positions of "so good enough indefinitely", "so where are these 'likely' sources, then?". I know people die a little inside when they hear "it's going to need some sort of additional process", but... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Personally I don't find the term 'presumed' that useful
: FWIW, presumed reflects the same wording at Wikipedia:Notability itself:
Also WP:GNG:A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right...
—Bagumba (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
- Those usages of "presumed" are also not helpful to me. I suppose they mean "highly likely" but still could be challenged via AfD. Personally I'm no fan of GNG - too vague for my liking. For NSPORT I'd prefer a different style of definition, otherwise we're no further forward. Probably I'd be happy going along the lines of saying someone who passes NSPORT can have an article (without having to strictly pass GNG) as long as we had a much better system by which the actual criteria could be challenged. Currently once a criteria is in place it has proved to be exceptionally difficult to get it changed. Perhaps we need a system whereby those wanting to keep a criteria need to justify it, rather than the other way round (which seems to be the current system), although I'm not sure how practical that would be. Nigej (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if presumed at WP:N and WP:GNG refers to:
Or is presumed because of other occasional WP:IAR exceptions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
- Yes, perhaps it's related to the "stand-alone" aspect, which wouldn't be relevant at NSPORT. It would be better if the wording was clearer. I don't think the IAR is relevant because even if we say something is black-and-white, the IAR could overrule it. It seems to me that NSPORT could simply say "A sports competitor passes NSPORT if they satisfy the criteria below." The "buck" then passes from arguing about whether someone passes NSPORT to arguing about whether the criteria are fit-for-purpose. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think new criteria will undergo a great deal of scrutiny now, so they will have to have strong justification. The key question is how should proposed criteria be evaluated, and what can gain consensus approval? Criteria that are linked to sources have had a lot of support, since sports figures have a lot of suitable coverage, and because there is a general consensus that Wikipedia biographies should be more that stats tables (though a sporting career biography could be written for some players in some sports based on routine coverage). There are some who would like a much higher standard (on a "had a historical impact" level), but I don't think that has consensus support. Some standard that aimed at capping the number of biographies to a certain percentage of high-level competitive athletes in a given sport would directly address the concern of some editors that sports figures have too large a percentage of all English Wikipedia biographies. This would probably work better for individual sports, or for some team sports where teams are not solely competing within fixed league schedules. For league sports, although it does have historical inequities, perhaps the simplest compromise is to do the groundwork on a stricter participation criterion, and demonstrate that (insert some high percentage here) of players who have competed in league W with X appearances during years Y to Z, for example, are sufficiently significant to have an individual article. isaacl (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- In my understanding, "presumed" is not related to whether or not the subject in question is better covered within another article—that's an editorial judgement issue, as per the sentences immediately following the one you quoted. (It's more common to come into play for non-biographies, but it could be a factor for relatives of other (real-world) notable people.) It's accommodating for the fact that each individual case can still be discussed and evaluated on the basis of consensus. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, perhaps it's related to the "stand-alone" aspect, which wouldn't be relevant at NSPORT. It would be better if the wording was clearer. I don't think the IAR is relevant because even if we say something is black-and-white, the IAR could overrule it. It seems to me that NSPORT could simply say "A sports competitor passes NSPORT if they satisfy the criteria below." The "buck" then passes from arguing about whether someone passes NSPORT to arguing about whether the criteria are fit-for-purpose. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if presumed at WP:N and WP:GNG refers to:
- Those usages of "presumed" are also not helpful to me. I suppose they mean "highly likely" but still could be challenged via AfD. Personally I'm no fan of GNG - too vague for my liking. For NSPORT I'd prefer a different style of definition, otherwise we're no further forward. Probably I'd be happy going along the lines of saying someone who passes NSPORT can have an article (without having to strictly pass GNG) as long as we had a much better system by which the actual criteria could be challenged. Currently once a criteria is in place it has proved to be exceptionally difficult to get it changed. Perhaps we need a system whereby those wanting to keep a criteria need to justify it, rather than the other way round (which seems to be the current system), although I'm not sure how practical that would be. Nigej (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would rather focus on the value and purpose of the SNG rather than get quickly lost in the details. I believe the question should be "which sets" (if any) does our community think ought to be complete (recognizing that this is a global project)? And secondly, if a set is worthy to be complete, are there significant sources to justify all people within the set (recognizing there will be people at the margins)? It is my believe that the SNGs help editors decide when an article could be created and (to a lesser extent) when an article could be brought to AFD. I think it is better to have clear(er) lines than spend energy at AFD trying to determine whether the coverage of a subject is sufficient. Enos733 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I don't find the term "presumed" that useful. Presumed - "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" seems to me to be pretty much the same as "very likely". However, the fundamental point is that if the criteria are reasonably well defined then no one's going to worry about a few cases at the margins. The problem has been that some criteria were so loose that tens of thousands of articles were created for non-notable people on the basis of criteria here. Nigej (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, something good can come from the close. The removal of the parts of NSPORTS that were the most bloated with low-level leagues will likely force participants in those projects to come up with more realistic guidelines that are truer predictors of GNG compliance. If we accomplish that, it's a good thing, but we should at the same time restore the presumption of notability. The language in the closure regarding sub-proposal 8 that has led to the striking of the presumption of notability is IMO completely unwarranted and unsupported by consensus. Cbl62 (talk) 20:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Wugapodes: needs to propose some wording. Those who have been heavily involved in the discussion should not be editing. GiantSnowman 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: As you surely must know, it usually is not a duty of the RfC closer (nor would it make sense for it to be, as then closers would be very much discouraged from attempting to bring an end to any hotly contested discussion) to have to implement the results, at least not in cases where the outcome is more complex than adding or removing a simple sentence. If there was not a specific proposed new lead, but there was a consensus to rewrite a portion of it, then one should try to figure out a new version which is consistent with that consensus - this might be solvable through the usual method of collaborative, incremental editing, or it might need a more thorough discussion here, but I don't think that we should be forcing the closer (who, presumably, was someone who did not participate in the discussion until now and certainly didn't nor was expected to read through all of the finer nuances and the little print of what has transpired) to implement this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Participation
@Cbl62: I think Have served as a commissioner, president, general manager, owner, coach, or manager in Major League Baseball
and Served as a full-time (as opposed to interim) head coach for NCAA Division I/University Division football (since the establishment of divisions in 1957), men’s basketball (since 1957) or women’s basketball (since 1982). Other college coaches in other divisions and/or other sports may also meet notability guidelines via WP:GNG
are participation; how they participate is different from a goalkeeper or a quarterback, but it is still participation rather than a more specific criteria. Compare to A coach or choreographer who has worked with many notable skaters, including at least one Olympic medalist or senior World Champion (for example, Pam Gregory and David Wilson)
which is not participation. BilledMammal (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Proposal #3 was directed specifically about athletes (and specifically described in the close). I would suggest a new discussion is warranted if the proposal was to expand to include other subjects. Enos733 (talk) 01:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The proposal appears to be more general, but you are correct that the close appears to be focused on athletes. I will ask the closer for clarification. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And aside from what Enos said, commissioners in baseball serve for multiple years. This is not like athletes where there a player who played for a game or two. The same is likewise true with managers who are not generally given that role for short "cups of coffee". Interim managers would be different, of course. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are a total of 10 people who have held the title of Commissioner of Baseball. Generally very long terms. All clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, although given how few there are I believe GNG is sufficient; when a new one is appointed they will easily receive enough coverage that no one will need to refer to NSPORT to decide whether an article is warranted. However, commissioners aren't the only participants covered by that line. BilledMammal (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are a total of 10 people who have held the title of Commissioner of Baseball. Generally very long terms. All clearly notable. Cbl62 (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And aside from what Enos said, commissioners in baseball serve for multiple years. This is not like athletes where there a player who played for a game or two. The same is likewise true with managers who are not generally given that role for short "cups of coffee". Interim managers would be different, of course. Cbl62 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The proposal appears to be more general, but you are correct that the close appears to be focused on athletes. I will ask the closer for clarification. BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
On another note, I still see participation based criteria listed in Badminton, Figure Skating, and Mixed Martial Arts. Enos733 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed MMA. I believe figure skating and badminton need separate consensuses; there is currently a discussion underway for figure skating, and one needs to be opened for badminton. BilledMammal (talk) 06:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
We have an anomalous sentence at WP:NHOCKEY. "For coaches or managers of ice hockey teams, substitute "coached" or "managed" for "played" in the player guidelines." which makes no sense now. It either needs deleting or modifying to eg "Coached or managed a senior national team for the World Championship, in the highest pool the IIHF maintained in any given year (Note: coaching or managing in lower pools that do not actually contest for the World Champion title is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements)." based on the now-deleted wording. Nigej (talk)
- Being a coach or a manager is not “participation,” it is a job that garners ongoing coverage, similar to a political officeholder and was NOT addressed in the RfC. The “participation” discussion was all about the whole one game thing Rikster2 (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't being a goalkeeper or a quarterback also a job that (might) garner ongoing coverage? I don't see the difference between participation as a quarterback and participation as a coach. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not the same thing and you are letting your biases get in the way of clear judgment. Isn’t being a state legislator a “participation” that may not yield any meaningful results, yet it falls under the Politics SNG. Managers and coaches are hired for years and are typically focal points of the news, which is why for certain levels and sports they pretty much ALWAYS meet GNG, for which SNGs are meant to approximate. The entire RfC was keying in on one-game thresholds for various sports. You are overstepping the bounds of the RfC and probably should take a break. Rikster2 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC was about NSPORT, not NPOL - although it looks like there will soon be an NPOL RFC. And while the SNG should approximate GNG, I'm not convinced it does for all the coaches supported by NSPORT. I'm not going to remove coaches again unless the closer clarifies their close to support such removal. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- As someone who was involved with crafting the college coach SNG guideline, it came after many frivolous AfDs. We were careful to cap what was covered - only top division NCAA coaches in modern times (since 1957 at the earliest), only for sports that pretty much have their own media ecosystem they are so popular (football and basketball), and purposefully omitting interim coaches who may only coach a handful of games. Thousands of coaches even in those sports don’t meet that criteria. There is a huge difference between that and somebody who appears in one professional game. Rikster2 (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suppose it depends on whether you think "competing" (which seems to me to be restricted to the players) is synonymous with "participating" (which might be construed to have a somewhat wider aspect). In discussions above the two have often been taken to have identical meanings, which does support your argument. Probably does need a further discussion. Nigej (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The RFC was about NSPORT, not NPOL - although it looks like there will soon be an NPOL RFC. And while the SNG should approximate GNG, I'm not convinced it does for all the coaches supported by NSPORT. I'm not going to remove coaches again unless the closer clarifies their close to support such removal. BilledMammal (talk) 09:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No, it is not the same thing and you are letting your biases get in the way of clear judgment. Isn’t being a state legislator a “participation” that may not yield any meaningful results, yet it falls under the Politics SNG. Managers and coaches are hired for years and are typically focal points of the news, which is why for certain levels and sports they pretty much ALWAYS meet GNG, for which SNGs are meant to approximate. The entire RfC was keying in on one-game thresholds for various sports. You are overstepping the bounds of the RfC and probably should take a break. Rikster2 (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Isn't being a goalkeeper or a quarterback also a job that (might) garner ongoing coverage? I don't see the difference between participation as a quarterback and participation as a coach. BilledMammal (talk) 09:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've changed the NHOCKEY wording based on the now-deleted criteria. Nigej (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I get that there was a problem with a few sports having one-game player permastub factories. I don't think there's such an issue for coaches or executives, where there's no hiring carousel. Channel the energy.—Bagumba (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Removing all the participations means that some sports have no guidelines, whereas others have kept most of theirs. How do you expect team sports such as football, cricket, rugby which don't award loads of trophies to have an outcome-based notability guideline? Whereas e.g. triathlon can still keep most of it's assumed notability, because it has a named tournament that it can just have an easy "top 10" of. Makes no sense, as it's biased WP:NSPORTS towards individual-participation sports, rather than team-based sports which get way more coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- In particular, I have concerns about the restoration of notability of the participation of managers in WP:NFOOTY - while some of the other coach/manager criteria are more selective and I would support their restoration in a formal or informal discussion, that criteria is extremely broad and considers anyone who has managed a competitive game between two fully professional team to be notable. This covers hundreds of leagues and thousands of teams, and is not a reliable predictor of notability. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with WP:NFOOTY then focus on trying to address that specifically rather than trying to sneak blanket changes in that were never explicitly under the scope of the RfC. Frankly, focusing on the problem areas instead of generalizing would have been a better solution to the whole RfC. Editors were getting frustrated largely with about 3-4 sports with lax guidelines but the entire SNG was nuked because no one seemed to have the stomach to take on the real issues Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. For one thing its not just 3-4, its been many more than that: soccer, american football, baseball, basketball, cricket, rugby, volleyball, aussie rules, and "individual sports" too. The other point is that there have been many attempts to tighten individual sports and pretty much all have failed. The recent changes have only been achieved by discussing NSPORT as a whole. Nigej (talk) 12:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- As a basketball editor mainly (though that far from my only interest in real life) I can say there would have been openness to paring down the 7-8 leagues that were in that guideline. But every person who has played in the NBA, for example, WOULD meet GNG (probably 90% of them before they play an NBA game if you want to be real - because of their college, other pro or in some cases high school careers). The question is where that bar is set, there are a finite number of leagues for which that is true. Footy had hundreds of leagues and many of us knew and had been saying that was WAY too many. And the majority of examples people brought up were footy, cricket, Olympics or some turn of the century baseball players Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And of those, cricket already changed/tightened its notable matches list last year, and football was already working on the assumption that playing a couple of games but having no coverage wasn't enough to keep an articles (hundreds of footballers who met WP:NFOOTY but not WP:GNG have been deleted in the last year). Things needed slightly tightening, not smashed to oblivion in a way that can never be fixed (as team sports have lots of participations and not many events with trophies, so how the hell can we base a guideline on anything else)? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cricket changed its guidelines in a manner which did not really address or truly resolve the issue [the sentence
has appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level.
was present before, and is the source of the issue, in that no, there are plenty of instances of players at the highest level - usually domestic, since international cricket was for a long time and still is mostly limited to only a handful of countries - not having significant coverage] (although they seem to be less dogmatic than other people and there are plenty of examples of articles which were deleted or redirected to a list due to failing GNG - something which some other sports projects seem entirely unable to contemplate). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cricket changed its guidelines in a manner which did not really address or truly resolve the issue [the sentence
- And of those, cricket already changed/tightened its notable matches list last year, and football was already working on the assumption that playing a couple of games but having no coverage wasn't enough to keep an articles (hundreds of footballers who met WP:NFOOTY but not WP:GNG have been deleted in the last year). Things needed slightly tightening, not smashed to oblivion in a way that can never be fixed (as team sports have lots of participations and not many events with trophies, so how the hell can we base a guideline on anything else)? Joseph2302 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nigej:Please point me to any discussions that you have seen where folks tried to narrow the WP:NBASKETBALL guideline and were stymied. It would have been unusual for me to have missed a discussion of that importance. I do know we have cut leagues from the standard and have said no to adding more leagues. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- My point was really related to the sports which have an excessively high number of biographies, and that includes Basketball, although it's certainly not the worst in this regards. My own issue is that sports competitors make up half of all biographies of living people, a ridiculous proportion. A large number of sports contribute to that, which is why I'm reluctant to accept that just a small number of sports as being responsible. Nigej (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- But what you said was "there have been many attempts to tighten individual sports and pretty much all have failed." As someone active in a project that has legitimately tried to hold to a guideline that realistically approximates GNG, I want to know what those attempts were for that sport, because I know I would be open to these and I think the project could have been brought along on that. We had like 7 active leagues in our guideline. Meanwhile 80-90% of the problem was being driven from a few sports that had hundreds of leagues or basically said "anyone who made a living playing the sport for a day." It is irritating that the entire SSG was nuked instead of trying to address more systematically. Rikster2 (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- My point was really related to the sports which have an excessively high number of biographies, and that includes Basketball, although it's certainly not the worst in this regards. My own issue is that sports competitors make up half of all biographies of living people, a ridiculous proportion. A large number of sports contribute to that, which is why I'm reluctant to accept that just a small number of sports as being responsible. Nigej (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- As a basketball editor mainly (though that far from my only interest in real life) I can say there would have been openness to paring down the 7-8 leagues that were in that guideline. But every person who has played in the NBA, for example, WOULD meet GNG (probably 90% of them before they play an NBA game if you want to be real - because of their college, other pro or in some cases high school careers). The question is where that bar is set, there are a finite number of leagues for which that is true. Footy had hundreds of leagues and many of us knew and had been saying that was WAY too many. And the majority of examples people brought up were footy, cricket, Olympics or some turn of the century baseball players Rikster2 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with WP:NFOOTY then focus on trying to address that specifically rather than trying to sneak blanket changes in that were never explicitly under the scope of the RfC. Frankly, focusing on the problem areas instead of generalizing would have been a better solution to the whole RfC. Editors were getting frustrated largely with about 3-4 sports with lax guidelines but the entire SNG was nuked because no one seemed to have the stomach to take on the real issues Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is a good illustration of why it was a bad idea to delete all these standards without replacement. This conversation should be about whether these people are likely to be notable, not about whether they have "participated". Frankly given that Major League Baseball is possibly the most prominent sports league in the world (it has the highest attendance and second highest revenue) it's hard to argue that people who've participated in it aren't likely to be notable. Hut 8.5 18:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since you clearly do not think there will be any problems in demonstrating notability per BASIC/GNG (which ultimately had to be done previously anyway), I'm not seeing what the issue is. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because the guideline isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of telling editors when subjects are likely to be notable. And the idea of getting rid of this guideline entirely and replacing it with the GNG has just failed to reach consensus. Hut 8.5 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- However the consensus is that the guideline didn't do that before. Nigej (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- And because the guideline hasn't been removed completely, interested parties can formulate new criteria to replace the basic participation criteria that were removed by consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The state of the guideline before doesn't mean this situation is OK, or even any better. I wonder what it would be like if this "logic" were applied outside Wikipedia. You take a car to a mechanic and tell them there's a problem with the tyres. The mechanic returns the car with all the wheels removed. "Well it wasn't working before, right? At least you can put some better wheels on it this time." Hut 8.5 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's more like someone going to the garage before the mechanic has finished and complaining that all the wheels have removed. No one in their right minds thinks we are at a satisfactory position but sometimes you have to a step backwards to make progress in the longer term. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- We don't know if there is going to be any future progress on this. There might not be. "Yeah, we might put some more wheels on your car, if someone can find any which I think are good enough." "When's that going to happen?" "Dunno. Whenever we get around to it, I guess." "How do I get to work in the meantime?" "Take the bus." Hut 8.5 19:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's more like someone going to the garage before the mechanic has finished and complaining that all the wheels have removed. No one in their right minds thinks we are at a satisfactory position but sometimes you have to a step backwards to make progress in the longer term. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The state of the guideline before doesn't mean this situation is OK, or even any better. I wonder what it would be like if this "logic" were applied outside Wikipedia. You take a car to a mechanic and tell them there's a problem with the tyres. The mechanic returns the car with all the wheels removed. "Well it wasn't working before, right? At least you can put some better wheels on it this time." Hut 8.5 18:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Because the guideline isn't fulfilling its stated purpose of telling editors when subjects are likely to be notable. And the idea of getting rid of this guideline entirely and replacing it with the GNG has just failed to reach consensus. Hut 8.5 18:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Since you clearly do not think there will be any problems in demonstrating notability per BASIC/GNG (which ultimately had to be done previously anyway), I'm not seeing what the issue is. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
As noted in the close, if you have a case where participation was the only SNG, then the available replacement/alternate is GNG, as it it for the zillion topics that don't even have a SNG. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Rugby union guidelines
The current guidelines for rugby union are that a person is likely notable if they have played for, coached or administered "1.A national team that placed in the top three after 1980 at the Women's Rugby World Cup, the Rugby World Cup, the Olympic Games, or the Commonwealth Games." This is absurd, and clearly written by someone who doesn't know rugby. Are you seriously suggesting that someone who won bronze for Sevens at the Commonwealth games is more likely to be notable than someone who's played for the British and Irish Lions because they've got a medal? It's a joke. Better to have no guidelines at all, like you've done for other sports, than to leave this nonsense standing. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This isn't a forum to vent your frustration. If you think that a new guideline which is better indicative of meeting WP:SIGCOV could be written, then you should suggest such a guideline instead. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wow, way to misunderstand my position. The point is, international Sevens, at the Olympics and elsewhere, is a junior competition, not the pinnacle of the sport, and anyone who understands rugby would know that. What has happened is the equivalent of me writing notability guidelines for, say, lacrosse, about which I know nothing, building in an arbitrary rule that says my guideline can't be challenged, and then condescending to people who actually follow the sport because they don't think the guideline I've written is suitable for it.
- I actually started out sympathetic to the goal of reducing the prevalence of one-line articles about non-notable subjects. I hate fancruft, and Wikipedia is unfortunately full of it. But the determined, invincible ignorance and unwillingness to learn I've encountered from the editors making these changes has brought me round to thinking that rampant fancruft is the lesser of two evils. If articles about players who've made one substitute appearance in an actually significant competition is the price we have to pay for informative content in an encyclopedia, so be it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Your most recent edit to this article had the edit summary "remove what is now nonsensical", and left the section on cricket reading:
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they
- Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires
- You removed something you thought was "nonsensical", and left something that isn't even English. If you're not reading your own edits, what chance do we have? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest either restoring this version or deleting it altogether, for now it makes no sense at all and is pretty much worthless ("Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they: Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires." What? And playing in the NBA is non-notable but being drafted is, and leading a stat in the G League is more important than doing it in the top league? And no American football? And the only way a baseball player can pass is being a HOF inductee?). This is completely nonsensical. Considering the crap shape it is in currently, I actually would support completely abolishing it like you proposed in January. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's actually the point of the exercise. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest either restoring this version or deleting it altogether, for now it makes no sense at all and is pretty much worthless ("Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they: Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires." What? And playing in the NBA is non-notable but being drafted is, and leading a stat in the G League is more important than doing it in the top league? And no American football? And the only way a baseball player can pass is being a HOF inductee?). This is completely nonsensical. Considering the crap shape it is in currently, I actually would support completely abolishing it like you proposed in January. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- All those players can still be included if they meet GNG. The alternative is to do actually what has been attempted (and often obstructed) for years and come up with guidelines which actually make sense (unlike the older ones) and which are accurate indicators of GNG (if anything, it's better if the guidelines here are a little bit too strict, the extra can still be included if they meet GNG, while if the guidelines are too broad, then you have the perpetual dispute which hopefully this will have brought an end to). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- But the whole point is people have just gone through and gutted the sections without any thought as to adjusting what is left, but apparently we aren't allowed to discuss this because we are sore losers. Spike 'em (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody is preventing you from making bold and uncontroversial changes so that the rest doesn't read like utter nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- So we have to clear up after other editors making a mess of things? Isn't that what the people in favour of removing the SNGs object to? Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cleaning up one page is much simpler than having hundreds of AfDs, no? And its not like there were previous attempt to clean this up, which often did not succeed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicknack009: The only thing disruptive is people stone-walling and not wanting to accept that consensus is against them. The reaction to the edits attempting to implement the consensus of the RfC (which was well advertised, well attended, and certainly lasted long enough) is the exact same kind of obstructionism that I was pointing out in my previous edit. Cleaning up this page would be so much simpler if people were not still trying to desperately dispute the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you still ignoring the nonsensical state you left the cricket section in? --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Was the cricket section incomprehensible after I left it? No. It might have needed a more thorough rewrite, but it is certainly not entirely nonsensical. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you still ignoring the nonsensical state you left the cricket section in? --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicknack009: The only thing disruptive is people stone-walling and not wanting to accept that consensus is against them. The reaction to the edits attempting to implement the consensus of the RfC (which was well advertised, well attended, and certainly lasted long enough) is the exact same kind of obstructionism that I was pointing out in my previous edit. Cleaning up this page would be so much simpler if people were not still trying to desperately dispute the issue. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Cleaning up one page is much simpler than having hundreds of AfDs, no? And its not like there were previous attempt to clean this up, which often did not succeed... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- So we have to clear up after other editors making a mess of things? Isn't that what the people in favour of removing the SNGs object to? Spike 'em (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nobody is preventing you from making bold and uncontroversial changes so that the rest doesn't read like utter nonsense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- But the whole point is people have just gone through and gutted the sections without any thought as to adjusting what is left, but apparently we aren't allowed to discuss this because we are sore losers. Spike 'em (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- All those players can still be included if they meet GNG. The alternative is to do actually what has been attempted (and often obstructed) for years and come up with guidelines which actually make sense (unlike the older ones) and which are accurate indicators of GNG (if anything, it's better if the guidelines here are a little bit too strict, the extra can still be included if they meet GNG, while if the guidelines are too broad, then you have the perpetual dispute which hopefully this will have brought an end to). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Where we go from here
It's obvious the decision in the recent RfC, and the resulting edits, has caused a lot of consternation. In particular, the edits by User:BilledMammal, User:RandomCanadian and others have been premature and not constructive, leaving a version of the page that is in many places nonsensical and unusable, and I'd like to thank User:GiantSnowman for reverting to the last stable version of the page - for now, at least.
If the decision to absoutely forbid participation-based guidlines is to stand, then discussion is needed as to what to replace them with, and that discussion needs to be held with the Wikiprojects for each sport. These projects have developed their own guidelines and gained consensus for them, some of them quite recently, and what's described as "rough consensus" between a relatively small number of editors should not be allowed to simply steamroller them. There are conflicting consensuses here, and negotiation is necessary.
I also think it may be necessary to propose a new RfC, not on the whole spread of proposals and subproposals, but specifically on participation-based guidelines and where they may or may not be appropriate. I'm not sure how to go about doing that, but I will look into it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- It is incorrect to this that there is a need to have something replace the participation based criteria, given that there is always the default GNG for all sports. That was the whole point of proposal #3 (which I suggested), was that participation does not assure significant coverage. If you can find cases where partication is absolutely tied to significant coverage, that would be a fresh addition, not a replacement. --Masem (t) 20:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you, having failed to get consensus to abolish NSPORT, attempting to achieve that by back door by disrupting it so badly you get your way anyway? Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The replacement is WP:SIGCOV. @GiantSnowman: Who should implement the result of an RfC, besides those who were involved in it? I figure, if somebody is interested in a topic, it is only logical for them to implement the consensus affecting that topic... Your edit also very clearly undermines that consensus. Personally, my only edit was removing some stray unrelated text which did not make sense given what was remaining, and I didn't !vote on that proposal, and I wouldn't be entirely opposed to some participation criteria (it does make sense in some cases that, yes, nearly all members of a group are likely notable - to take the same example as the one I edited, likely that a cricket criterion which was something "All international cricketers from Test-playing nations" could probably work), but I'm definitively of the opinion that most of these probably should be rewritten from scratch if that is the case. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Either those involved (following further discussion and agreement), or those entirely uninvolved in the RFC. Those with a view on the matter making changes and falsely claiming they reflect the consensus is entirely inappropriate. I think we need a sport-by-sport discussion. GiantSnowman 20:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- How about we just add 2-3 sources with significant coverage to every sports related articles we create? Alvaldi (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, since WP:SIGCOV is a rather vague element of WP:N and doesn't really help resolve disputes in this area, what would help on a guideline level would be a specification of SIGCOV for these biographies that could be used to assess the Notability of sports figures. I didn't participate in the RfC and don't have a horse (sic.) in this race, but it seems to me that the main decision to be made is what counts as a non-trivial mention in sports coverage. Newimpartial (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is how I thought the close was going to be - that the requirement to add sources (in addition to or beyond a database source[s]) to all articles would pass and there would be no change to the participation measure (except with perhaps an acknowledgment that the community should revisit all leagues to be more certain that nearly all athletes in those leagues have significant coverage). Enos733 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, the more intransigent editors dug in their heels and opposed measures like that with all their might and main, that sensible option was off the table. So perhaps the individual sports projects can turn some energy to coming up with revised standards, and in the meantime either rely on the GNG (and on ensuring that new article creations come with the multiple reliable sources that they should have been doing as a matter of course already) or just not create new sports bios until they do. Ravenswing 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Again, as a non-participant in the RfC and in this subject area, I find it disconcerting how often editors have posted to this Talk page as though their personal beliefs had received consensus support in the RfC when, according to the close, they did not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus declared by the close was not clear, by their own admission, and may be unworkable. More importantly in my opinion, the changes that have followed the close were disruptive, I believe intentionally. If changes are to be made as a result of the closure, they have to be done properly, and not simply, as User:RandomCanadian admitted, leaving "utter nonsense" for other editors to clear up. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is what I mean - individual editors are going to interpret the close how they want. GiantSnowman 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Even a clear, undisputed consensus does not give anyone the right to edit disruptively. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Again, as a non-participant in the RfC and in this subject area, I find it disconcerting how often editors have posted to this Talk page as though their personal beliefs had received consensus support in the RfC when, according to the close, they did not. Newimpartial (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, the more intransigent editors dug in their heels and opposed measures like that with all their might and main, that sensible option was off the table. So perhaps the individual sports projects can turn some energy to coming up with revised standards, and in the meantime either rely on the GNG (and on ensuring that new article creations come with the multiple reliable sources that they should have been doing as a matter of course already) or just not create new sports bios until they do. Ravenswing 20:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Where a removal is clearly simply implementing the RFC that is not disruptive. If remaining text needs editing to simply make sense is also doable. GNG is the alternative where needed. But I would urge all to just get this done and don't look for ways to mire it down or roadblock it. Let's just implement and move on and enjoy the evolution. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Alas, there has not been, and will not be, anything 'clear' or 'simple' about this... GiantSnowman 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Removing almost all of the text is not fixing, it's breaking. Lots of the removed content could have been tightened by a discussion of people who know what the competitions in question actually are, rather than being rsndomly culled so the resulting page made no sense at all. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That is not the term or statement of my sentence. If some material only establishes a criteria that the RFC said should be removed, removal would be clearly simply implementing the RFC. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've reimplemented it. You can't reject the consensus on procedural grounds - WP:NOTBURO - particularly since the procedural grounds are not based in policy. Note we are already making progress towards fixing the inconsistencies this introduces, such as at WP:NRU, and further work is ongoing there to make an effective guideline. BilledMammal (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Let's recall what Proposal 3 was:
Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events ...
Implementation of this proposal, which has consensus, means removing all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT except Olympics. It does not mean replacing it with a new participation criteria. It does not mean talking about how to removing the participation criteria. The implementation is removing the criteria. (By the way, not only for players, there is no qualification or limitation on "participation criteria".) There is no rule that this implementation has to be done by someone uninvolved. Those who are reverting this implementation are being disruptive. Levivich 22:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
By the way, not only for players, there is no qualification or limitation on "participation criteria".
Strongly agree on this point; there can only be a restriction to players if you misinterpret "participation" as "played". Note that there are some criteria that I don't have an objection to, such as the participation criteria for managers of Baseball, but all of the criteria needs to be discussed to determine whether it is suitable to keep in the guideline, now that the status quo is removal. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- If the criteria is working, why should we remove it? I think the editors who participated in the discussion were more nuanced than rigid in their evaluation of any of the proposals. One of the nice things about this project is that we can take the time to implement the proposal correctly in a way that makes sense. Enos733 (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Admin lock
Can we lock the page down so only admins have the right to edit it? As from what I see at the moment, "too many cooks in the kitchen" seems to be happening to this project page. Govvy (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That would mire down or stop the implementation.North8000 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? Because my point of view from my watchlist, is this the page is clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Messy is inevitable for a big complex change. If there are behavioral issues beyond that, they should be addressed as behavioral issues. North8000 (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Really? Because my point of view from my watchlist, is this the page is clearly a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Govvy (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- NSPORT needs to be Superprotected! BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- What I see is people trying to impose their own additional conditions on the implementation of the RFC that would mire down or stop it's implementation. North8000 (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Let's see here: AssociateAffiliate restored the cricket criteria. Wjemather reverted it. GiantSnowman restored the March 6 version. BilledMammal reverted it. I reverted BilledMammal. Levivich reverted me. Felixsv7 reverted Levivich. Cbl62 reverted Felixsv7. Felixsv7 reverted Cbl62. BilledMammal reverted Felix. And then Spike 'em reverted BilledMammal. This is one heck of an edit war! I say we all need a timeout. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Editors should not be stonewalling these changes; there is a consensus for them, and if they dislike the result then they should be proposing modifications to correct those issues. I am already attempting this with WP:NRU. BilledMammal (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've left a request at WP:RFPP (where this request should be made) so that an uninvolved admin can deal with this. Iffy★Chat -- 22:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I urge everyone to please stop reverting each other. It literally doesn't matter regarding deletion discussions: I'm certain someone will point closers to the village pump discussion and they will choose to give it whatever weight they deem appropriate, in the context of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators § Rough consensus. Agreed the interim condition of the page isn't great for newcomers, but that's true for either of the states that the page is switching between. isaacl (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I have fully protected this page. BilledMammal, BeanieFan11, Levivich, Felixsv7, Spike 'em, you should all know better than to edit war like that. Work this out on talk. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: This was worked out, in an RFC. Please explain to me what is wrong with removing the participation based criteria, and what there is for me to discuss with the editor I reverted? Levivich 22:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: Echoing Levivich. There is a consensus for these changes, and while some editors may dislike that change there should be no issue with implementing it - though there is an issue with editors WP:STONEWALLING that implementation. BilledMammal (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There was no consensus for what these changes should be - just an appreciation that the bar might be currently set too low. Deleting the current guidelines without any replacement strategy is not a constructive way forward. Felixsv7 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- What is unclear about
Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events
? It says "remove", not "replace". Levivich 22:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC) - The close stated: "participation-based criteria are a problem and that the best way forward is to remove them". This is not ambiguous, and nor does it require more filibustering prior to implementation. The close was also clear that the replacement strategy is GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- What is unclear about
Everyone, instead of complaining about how the WP:WRONGVERSION is in place, can you go back to discussing the changes? This particular thread is a distraction now that the page is fully protected. Iffy★Chat -- 22:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- What is there to discuss about the change? The consensus is to remove all participation criteria; there is little to discuss beyond "is this participation criteria", and I believe the only area that is disputed in is managers/coaches. BilledMammal (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- From what I see, this is really just a shit-show, you should go back to the person that closed and ask for a joint reassessment. The close that happened, was poorly crafted. The amount of content and context involved for your abolishment of NSPORT will not only daunt a lot of user it will alienate others from taking part. Biting off more than you can chew. You should build and develop in smaller issues, take each SNG at a time and work on that. This page should stay closed until you have sorted out these issues. Govvy (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- As keeps being pointed out and you (User:BilledMammal and your allies) keep ignoring, the edits you're making leave the page making no sense. Repeating "consensus" does not change that. You got a "rough consensus" of the people who contributed to the discussion at the village pump, which clearly does not have a wider consensus of editors, but leaving that aside, you did not get consensus to make disruptive edits and leave the cleanup to others. So stop it until we have a chance to figure out what the page should say! --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The page made sense after the edits. There were inconsistencies, such as considering semi-finalists of the Women's RWC to be notable but not the men, but those inconsistencies can be fixed - and in that specific example they had been fixed, and we were working on improving the guideline further. BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you're going to claim that leaving a section as reading:
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they
- Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires
- makes sense, I would have to question your good faith. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- In which case one should probably point you to WP:ABF and smack a big WP:TROUT for good measure. In this case, while one could say that it is clumsily written, even that it does not follow the usual rules of the English language, the meaning of it is quite clear, so it does "make sense", although it might be "in need of a rewrite". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you're going to claim that leaving a section as reading:
- The page made sense after the edits. There were inconsistencies, such as considering semi-finalists of the Women's RWC to be notable but not the men, but those inconsistencies can be fixed - and in that specific example they had been fixed, and we were working on improving the guideline further. BilledMammal (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- As keeps being pointed out and you (User:BilledMammal and your allies) keep ignoring, the edits you're making leave the page making no sense. Repeating "consensus" does not change that. You got a "rough consensus" of the people who contributed to the discussion at the village pump, which clearly does not have a wider consensus of editors, but leaving that aside, you did not get consensus to make disruptive edits and leave the cleanup to others. So stop it until we have a chance to figure out what the page should say! --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 9 March 2022
Within the sports-specific criteria, replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist" per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability Subproposal #8. The proposed change has been discussed, consensus has been reached and it is ready to be implemented without further discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC) –dlthewave ☎ 23:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Enthusiastic support. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, straightforward implementation of the RfC's #8.2 per closer. Pilaz (talk) 00:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Clear straightforward implementation --SuperJew (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Done –dlthewave ☎ 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, another place for discussion? Can we centralize the discussion at AN, instead of expecting everyone to scour Wikipedia for yet another discussion. There's a thread at AN about freezing the page while a very contentious discussion is ongoing. Nfitz (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Editors reaching an agreement in the talk page after a page protection is exactly how the whole process is supposed to work. You don't get to overturn that if all you have is some useless procedural argument that doesn't address any of the actual issues. Avilich (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Nfitz, I would have thought checking the talk page for relevant discussion would be a basic first step before a mass revert. If you had done so you would have noticed this edit request which was opened before the self-requested AN review. In any case the open review is not grounds to revert, and the outcome of subproposal #8 does not appear to be in contention. –dlthewave ☎ 01:37, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this limited change should be implemented as per sub-proposal 8. GiantSnowman 22:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (2)
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, please remove the section "American football/Canadian football", as all criteria within the section are participation criteria and there is a consensus to remove them. BilledMammal (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, the page has been protected to prevent edit-warring regarding the removal of participation based SNGs. This is an attempt to usurp that page protection, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed and consensus has been reached. It is ready to be implemented. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus has been contested by senior editors including admin, so there is obviously not a practical consensus. The closure was dubious and there should be a review,Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- This has already been discussed and consensus has been reached. It is ready to be implemented. –dlthewave ☎ 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose as well, per Atlantic306. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I support, and dispute the opposes as being nothing but stubborn stonewalling (by people who also opposed the new improvements at the RfC). I do not see any challenge to the close (beyond a few polite questions regarding its clarity or its exact outcome on the closer's talk page), and unless the close is reversed, it stands, and people objecting to it should not try to put up even more bureaucratic obstacles in an attempt to filibuster it a final time before it passes... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, the page has been protected to prevent edit-warring regarding the removal of participation based SNGs. This is an attempt to usurp that page protection, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, per the closing statement, "There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria". Avilich (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, the current objections to this are status quo stonewalling and are not the appropriate venue to contest an extremely well-attended RfC close. Per Proposal 3 of the RfC mentioned above, there is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria (except those based on olympic or similar participation), and the "American football/Canadian football" section consists of one participation-based criterion and two notes, so the whole section should be deleted. Pilaz (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Obviously there are problems with the RfC and implementation. This has already led to edit-wars and numerous continuation of discussion. This is just another attempt to backdoor the changes which have been flagged as problematic after protection of the page. --SuperJew (talk) 06:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Temporarily on hold given the proposal at the bottom regarding how best to implement this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Moving forward
I think we ought to do a couple things to move us forward in a positive direction.
First, I think in either the lede and/or under the Basic Criteria section we specify that 1) articles about sportspeople require sourcing beyond a database and 2) that a RFC concluded that participating in one game or event does not mean that the subject meets NBASIC. Second, the specific sections mentioning participation would not be deleted while editors work to revise and refine the criteria.
I think this change should only exist for a specified time period while additional work is done (like two weeks or a month). This method would provide guidance to editors and recognizes that more changes to NSPORT are needed. It also may have the benefit of limited disruption while work is done to revise each category. --Enos733 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Disagree. The consensus is to remove the participation criteria, and removing it is an improvement to the guidelines. We can work on improving the guidelines further once that criteria is removed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't see how that was a "consensus," unless that just means whatever the deletionists want... I also disagree that removing them are "improving" guidelines. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- BeanieFan11, if you believe that the close was incorrect then I would suggest taking it up with the closing editor. –dlthewave ☎ 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Until such point that a new RFC changes the close, the expectation is that participation should be removed. The question is how to best implement that close. I think it is better to acknowledge in the lede that the close concluded there was consensus that participation-based criteria would not be sufficient, but I do think there should be a transition period in the text to another community-developed criteria. Enos733 (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we should temporarily demote this guideline to an essay with some sort of note about it being under revision... and then work on drafting new rules before rewriting the page because just removing the participation stuff without a replacement makes the entire page useless. Spanneraol (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I still don't see how that was a "consensus," unless that just means whatever the deletionists want... I also disagree that removing them are "improving" guidelines. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The "Basic criteria" section already states that database sources with wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion are not sufficient to show a subject meets the standard of having an article. (A database of hall-of-famers, for example, would not be one with a wide-sweeping, generic standard.) isaacl (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If that were clear, there would be no need for Proposal 5 (...Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article). Enos733 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that adding another statement regarding databases is necessary to document the requirement to have one citation to a suitable source providing significant coverage (though the existing one could be reworded). The reason for proposal 5 is that there was no requirement for any citations to establish that the general notability guideline has been met. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If that were clear, there would be no need for Proposal 5 (...Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article). Enos733 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (3)
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, please remove the section "Association football (soccer)", as all criteria within the section are participation criteria and there is a consensus to remove them. –dlthewave ☎ 23:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Football is also an olympic sport! You can't simply abolish this. The conclusion of what ever was written, it wouldn't work. You're just pressing GNG anyway and NFOOTBALL worked pretty well for the Football Project, I don't get the pains people go to to destroy it. Govvy (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Participation in Football at the Olympics has already been removed, per this discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. Per RfC closer:
There is a rough consensus to eliminate participation-based criteria.
"Association football (soccer)" #1 & #2 are participation-based criteria. The note clarifies the use of a term used in #1 and #2. There is no way to leave anything behind after removing the participation-based criteria, so deleting everything is the adequate implementation of the rough consensus found at the RfC. Pilaz (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC) - Oppose Objectively, there was clear no consensus about that subproposal. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support- this proposal gained consensus. Reyk YO! 06:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Obviously there are problems with the RfC and implementation. This has already led to edit-wars and numerous continuation of discussion. This is just another attempt to backdoor the changes which have been flagged as problematic after protection of the page. --SuperJew (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose changes to the guideline are being discussed at WT:FOOTY, and fixing issues is better than nuking everything based on a thin consensus. The closer has also noted on the talkpage of the discussion that the point should be to discuss each one not nuke. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Discussing each point individually is what we are doing right now, and a well-attended Village Pump consensus supersedes a WikiProject discussion, per WP:CONLEVEL. Pilaz (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per RfC consensus. Alvaldi (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. We're not !voting here. The only question is whether this change matches the close; any comments that don't address that must be ignored. BilledMammal (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well the close is being reviewed/clarified at AN, and the close didn't give a clear mandate on what to do, so you assuming it gave you a mandate to nuke everything is plain wrong, so stop pushing that. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- The close gave a clear mandate to eliminate participation based criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop bludgeoning users. --SuperJew (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm replying to an editor who replied to me. That's not bludgeoning. BilledMammal (talk) 09:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) The close is being reviewed at AN, and the closer themselves has said on the talkpage that
Further drafting and consensus-building after an RfC close is typical, and while a little hectic, I think BRD is yielding better results than if I simply wrote my own policy wording.
i.e. we should be trying to reach an agreeable solution. Nuking is not an agreeable solution, and certainly not the only way to interpret the vague closure based on a thin consensus. Sports editors are happy to work with people to fix issues, but nuking everything is not the way to build collaboration and sensible guidelines, it's the way to create nonsense like the version of this guidelines before it was reverted. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please stop bludgeoning users. --SuperJew (talk) 09:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- The close gave a clear mandate to eliminate participation based criteria. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well the close is being reviewed/clarified at AN, and the close didn't give a clear mandate on what to do, so you assuming it gave you a mandate to nuke everything is plain wrong, so stop pushing that. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- oppose - the scrapping of NSPORTS was clearly rejected, yet this is exactly what Billed Mammal is trying to do by removing it. GiantSnowman 10:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is a fallacious argument since there is no prejudice against creation of new criteria or even reinstatement of individual removed participation criterion should they gain new consensus. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support per RfC consensus. If a sport only has participation criteria then clearly that particular sport should be removed from NSPORT. Nigej (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose any action taken to remove NFOOTY in its current form, it can be tailored better. But it had been working fine with most users for a long time. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support. I voted against subproposal 3 and thought it was a really bad idea that would result in chaos. I also posted notices at the footy and other sports projects advising them of subproposal 3. Unfortunately, and after more than a month of voting, the supporters of NFOOTY, NGRIDIRON, NBASEBALL and other one-game criteria lost the vote. The burden is now on each of those projects to come up with criteria that are more precisely calibrated to GNG compliance. Cbl62 (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- and if you see comments from users who did not participate, they either were unaware or were aware but didn't know where to begin given the extent of the discussion! GiantSnowman 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Editors who choose not to participate in discussions do not get to arbitrarily overrule consensus reached by those that do participate. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I hear what you're saying Snowman, but the notices I posted at the footy project included a link that took the reader directly to subproposal 3. If people didn't bother to read the postings or click the links, I don't know what to say. I wish the outcome was different, but I don't think we should go the "Trump"-ian route and claim that this was a "rigged" vote. Cbl62 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Editors who choose not to participate in discussions do not get to arbitrarily overrule consensus reached by those that do participate. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- and if you see comments from users who did not participate, they either were unaware or were aware but didn't know where to begin given the extent of the discussion! GiantSnowman 12:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Joseph, GiantSnowman, Govvy and others. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. This should probably be put on hold pending the AN review. However, all editors should now be working constructively to implement the consensus and formulate new guidelines where appropriate; they should not be gaming the system to prevent implementation of that consensus with fallacious arguments, particularly when they are simply rehashing the RFC or repeating "concerns" that were explicitly addressed in the close. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- They might've been addressed and even mentioned in the close, but concerns are legitimate and despite them being addressed and even mentioned in the close, we can already see cases of trying to grandfather, like in this AfD for a page created in 2009. --SuperJew (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure you understand what is meant by grandfathering. In any case, articles (new or old, grandfathering or not) do not get an exception to the eventual NSPORT requirement to meet GNG; and fwiw, it is commonly argued that articles that are over 10 years old have had more than enough grace in that regard. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh please, well since you're so smart, please explain to me what is meant by grandfathering. And fwiw, I have no problem with a discussion of "scraping by an SNG" vs "pure GNG" on an article basis, but that isn't the case with comments such as
The notability guidelines for football have been altereed, and now only apply to managers, so he does not pass that. He clearly does not pass GNG, and so the article should be deleted
. --SuperJew (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)- Not an answer to your question, but technically any AfD !vote worded that way ought to be ignored by any closer, because it is WP:NBASIC that applies to biographies, not the WP:GNG. I find the ignorance about this coming from many quarters in this discussion to be deeply irritating. Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oh please, well since you're so smart, please explain to me what is meant by grandfathering. And fwiw, I have no problem with a discussion of "scraping by an SNG" vs "pure GNG" on an article basis, but that isn't the case with comments such as
- I'm not sure you understand what is meant by grandfathering. In any case, articles (new or old, grandfathering or not) do not get an exception to the eventual NSPORT requirement to meet GNG; and fwiw, it is commonly argued that articles that are over 10 years old have had more than enough grace in that regard. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- They might've been addressed and even mentioned in the close, but concerns are legitimate and despite them being addressed and even mentioned in the close, we can already see cases of trying to grandfather, like in this AfD for a page created in 2009. --SuperJew (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Replacements can always be discussed here, but removal of the existing participation-based standards was clearly the rough consensus of the RfC. Avilich (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: Temporarily on hold given the proposal at the bottom regarding how best to implement this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (4)
Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #5, please add Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article.
as a fourth dot point within "Basic Criteria", as there is a consensus that all sports articles require at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: Discussion is needed as removal of the participation criteria is a contentious part of the close that has been opposed by senior editors including admin. The close should be reviewed before participation criteria is removed which would spike more edit warring, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022
- Is the close under review? –dlthewave ☎ 23:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The closer has been questioned, that is the first stage Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thete is no discussion on the closers page discussing the aspects of the close, just the mechanics of implementation. As RandomCanadian says, there is a proper channel to dispute an RFC close if you this the closer did it improperly, but be aware that is not a chance to re argue the issues again, only if the closer follow procedure. --Masem (t) 23:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is discussion of the close in the NSPORTS RFC section on Wugapodes talk page where he advises editors can start a review on the AN page Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- If you personally don't like the close, then you know the procedure on how to challenge it. Until such time, the close stands. If you are not intending on doing so, then your opposition is nothing more than the exact same kind of bureaucratic nonsense and filibustering that has plagued any attempt at changing anything sports-related. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Edit warring is not a step forward. The page has been protected because there isn't a practical consensus just a forced consensus by a dubious close. Imposing a challenged close is the worst kind of bureaucratic nonsense. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Disputing a consensus (which has not been formally challenged nor overturned) at a well attended and well advertised discussion is in line with the kind of bureaucratic nonsense that has plagued any previous attempt to improve NSPORTS. Of course, I'm not surprised, but I also find it greatly disingenuous and frankly impolite that editors are simply not willing to drop the stick and stop fighting when the consensus is clearly against them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Impolite? disingenuous is impolite. The consensus was forced and there would not be edit-warring if there was a clear consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- "forced"? Who on God green's Earth "forced" a consensus? An uninvolved editor read through the discussion and closed it after a polite request. That is not forced. That is just how things are done on Wikipedia. If you don't like the result of the close, that is another issue, but you shouldn't be disputing it solely because you don't like the outcome... There's WP:DEADHORSE, and this clearly applies here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of opposition you're facing shows that, while you may have achieved a procedural consensus, you don't have a meaningful consensus. Continuing to demand your changes be restored after an admin has locked the page is procedural edit warring. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The opposition is coming from the same persons who firmly opposed the proposal or any variant, so you can read what you want from that... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- "The amount of opposition" that you describe is in reality WP:STONEWALLING. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Consensus found at a well-populated and uncontested RfC supersedes whatever you're trying to argue here. Pilaz (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it's exactly the opposite way around. A limited group of editors produced a "rough consensus" (in the face of some participants who "firmly opposed" it), and, when they tried to implement it, found that more editors had problems with it. You don't have a meaningful consensus, and insisting you do in the face of contrary evidence isn't doing your cause any favours.
- User:BilledMammal and I have made some progress over at the Rugby Union project discussing what guidelines might be suitable for a sport like rugby where the most notable players are ones who have careers in the game rather than ones who win one-off competitions. Any solution there will necessarily involve some participation element, but should stress that this is a guideline only and an indication that that significant coverage is likely to exist rather than a criteria for presumed notability, and we're trying to find a way of tightening it to discourage editors from creating articles about players who are unlikely to be notable - my suggestion is appearances across two or more seasons. This, to my mind, is unavoidable given the nature of the sport, and respects the thought and effort the rugby union project put into creating the existing guidelines. BilledMammal is at least listening to my points. I would respectfully suggest that this is the way to go - recognising that the consensus you thought you had is not as clear as you thought, that policies that suit one sport might not be appropriate for others, and discussing on a case-by-case basis - rather than insisting "I will have my bond!" and trying to impose an unworkable blanket prohibition. --Nicknack009 (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not against discussing case by case (what the interim solution should be is another question), although that seems irrelevant for this particular proposal, which is not about any sport-specific criteria, but a broader statement which had actually even clearer consensus in support than the other. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- The amount of opposition you're facing shows that, while you may have achieved a procedural consensus, you don't have a meaningful consensus. Continuing to demand your changes be restored after an admin has locked the page is procedural edit warring. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- "forced"? Who on God green's Earth "forced" a consensus? An uninvolved editor read through the discussion and closed it after a polite request. That is not forced. That is just how things are done on Wikipedia. If you don't like the result of the close, that is another issue, but you shouldn't be disputing it solely because you don't like the outcome... There's WP:DEADHORSE, and this clearly applies here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: Discussion is needed as removal of the participation criteria is a contentious part of the close that has been opposed by senior editors including admin. The close should be reviewed before participation criteria is removed which would spike more edit warring, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2022
- Of the many thousands of editors active on Wikipedia, and the many dozens participating in the relevant discussions, that a handful of rejectionists are trying to subvert the result by claiming no "meaningful" consensus (whatever the hell that is) is unfortunate, if unsurprising. As it happens, Wikipedia maintains no distinction between a "procedural" and "meaningful" consensus. Sorry, but one of my catchphrases is that a consensus-based system means that sometimes you're going to be on the losing side of it. No one editor, no handful of editors gets to have a veto over consensus, however little you like it. Ravenswing 05:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is functionally equivalent to replacing the guideline with the GNG, which was rejected in the close of the headline proposal of the RfC. The headline proposal will have got far more scrutiny than proposal 5 of 8 in a very long discussion. Hut 8.5 08:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- That this has already been refuted at the RfC (it is not functionally equivalent to the GNG, and even if it were, it did gain a rather strong consensus), and the fact that subproposal 5 is the one which got the most comments other than the main proposal, makes your comment nothing more than obstructionism. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 9 March 2022 (5)
Can someone add the protection topicon? The admin that protected forgot to add it I guess. InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 23:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- The only edit request here that I support. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Will be done by a bot shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added it. I don't think it's designed to show up on talk pages though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I believe InterstateFive wanted you to add it to the main Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Correct. --InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 00:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- MusikBot II was really fast a removing it from an unprotected page... isaacl (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: I believe InterstateFive wanted you to add it to the main Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I added it. I don't think it's designed to show up on talk pages though. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Village pump closure review
User:Wugapodes has asked for a review of the Village pump closure here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#NSPORTS_closure_review Natg 19 (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Implementing the RfC - participation criteria - interim status
Obviously, some form of consensus needs to form about how this part of the RfC should be implemented. Doesn't look like it will be overturned, so that leaves a few options as regards how the page should be until such time either a major rewrite or some replacement text explaining the situation has been agreed upon:
- Remove all participation-only criteria which were not exempted (i.e. not those relating to Olympics or similar events). [i.e. this would be the solution that has first been attempted but reverted. This could and probably should be coupled with a copy-edit where required]
- Keep the criteria, but add a clear indication that they are only a placeholder until such time as the existing criteria are updated or replaced.
- Keep the criteria as is for the time being, and revisit this issue in a short while ["short while" would be something like, at the absolute most, a few days to a few weeks (2-3 being the upper limit): obviously, this cannot be a permanent solution, unless the closure gets overturned, but there might be a good argument as to let the dust settle and revisit this when any procedural objections have been settled].
What d'ya think? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think a placeholder and giving the various projects a defined time to come up with new criteria is best. But that isn't a few days. It also isn't 8 months. Rikster2 (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion 3 isn't really intended to be enough for that to happen, more to let the current matter at AN settle and be sure we are on solid ground. Of course, at that point it might make sense to let the various projects a defined time to come up with new criteria. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- To a certain extent I think it depends on how quickly new proposals can be formulated and, critically, how likely they are to be approved. Does the placeholder stay in place if new proposals fail or is it deleted at that point? As such I think option 1 is the clearest way forward. Nigej (talk) 15:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well that brings an interesting question. Who signs off on the new SSG guidance? No offense, but there are a number of folks who have been active in this discussion for whom I can no longer WP:AGF. I'd prefer some unaffiliated panel or something similar Rikster2 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was assuming it would be by consensus here. I'm only wondering whether a sport might come back here with a tweak to the criteria, expecting that to be approved and I'm wondering what's going to happen if it isn't. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Certainly anyone can chime in but I am not busting my butt to try to put good faith SSG guidance together (which, done right will take a lot of my and others' volunteer time) to satisfy people like BilledMammal who are coming at this from a clear bias against athlete bios. I want editors who are sincerely interested in ensuring SSG guidance approximates GNG and are open to what that means. Those folks probably didn't flock to this discussion or contribute 100s of lines of text to these discussions and affiliated AfDs. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- The trouble is that one person's "good faith SSG guidance" is another person's "ludicrously loose criteria". At the end of the data they'll need to be some give-and-take from both sides. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not if we get some people who didn't go all-in on this shitstorm. I never said let the sports put their criteria out without review, now did I? Rikster2 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Battlegrounding is not going to move us forward. Please stop. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not if we get some people who didn't go all-in on this shitstorm. I never said let the sports put their criteria out without review, now did I? Rikster2 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- The trouble is that one person's "good faith SSG guidance" is another person's "ludicrously loose criteria". At the end of the data they'll need to be some give-and-take from both sides. Nigej (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- All guidelines need to be established by consensus from the general community. Practically, the editors most interested in a subject have the appropriate knowledge of the domain to craft appropriate guidance. So it falls upon them to figure out what guidelines are suitable and to convince the community, making revisions as necessary. isaacl (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- No. Certainly anyone can chime in but I am not busting my butt to try to put good faith SSG guidance together (which, done right will take a lot of my and others' volunteer time) to satisfy people like BilledMammal who are coming at this from a clear bias against athlete bios. I want editors who are sincerely interested in ensuring SSG guidance approximates GNG and are open to what that means. Those folks probably didn't flock to this discussion or contribute 100s of lines of text to these discussions and affiliated AfDs. Rikster2 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I was assuming it would be by consensus here. I'm only wondering whether a sport might come back here with a tweak to the criteria, expecting that to be approved and I'm wondering what's going to happen if it isn't. Nigej (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well that brings an interesting question. Who signs off on the new SSG guidance? No offense, but there are a number of folks who have been active in this discussion for whom I can no longer WP:AGF. I'd prefer some unaffiliated panel or something similar Rikster2 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I suggested something akin to #2/#3 above. I do agree that there should be rapid movement toward new sport-based criteria (see the Rugby Union Project's discussion). --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 is the clearest and simplest way to implement consensus from the RFC, and can be accompanied by a placeholder, so we should probably do that. Options 2 and 3 would only be acceptable as very short-term solutions, which seems an unlikely result, in addition to probably creating/prolonging confusion and uncertainty, so would be better avoided. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Option #1 is best This will actually implement the results of the RFC. #2 and #3 would turn out to be ways to avoid doing so. North8000 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Placeholder text (suggestion no. 2)
Following an RfC, the current criteria based solely on participation have been rendered obsolete in most cases. They are kept here as a placeholder until a final implementation of that RfC. Editors are divided on their usefulness, and they should not be relied upon for the time being, although they may still, in some cases, be useful indicators.
One could also add a Until such time as the situation has been resolved, editors should fall back to the remaining criteria, including WP:SPORTSCRIT, WP:NBIO, and ultimately, WP:SIGCOV.
.
Would this be an acceptable compromise? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would go "Following an (linked) RFC, it was concluded that just participating in one game or event does not mean that the subject meets WP:NBASIC. Criteria based solely on participation are ..." Enos733 (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Conditional Support of RandomCanadian's proposal pending the outcome of the review at WP:AN. Seems reasonable, but probably best to hold off until the review is complete to avoid mass chaos given there is no deadline. I'm also open to including some other language referencing both the RfC and review until the latter is complete, reflecting the current uncertain future status of those guidelines, then adding in RC's language if the closure is upheld. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Suggest replacing
"Editors are divided on their usefulness, and"
with"Since these criteria no longer enjoy consensus support,"
. Otherwise, looks fine including the additional pointer to our fallback guidelines. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC) (EDIT) Note: this comment should not in any way be taken as an expression of support for this option (i.e. 2). wjematherplease leave a message... 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)- Shouldn't any changes happens after the closure review is complete? It seems awfully presumptuous to say
Doesn't look like it will be overturned
. Natg 19 (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)- There's already a few dozen who have commented and most, nearly all of them do not really suggest overturning anything (there are a few isolated mentions, but that's about it). Anyway, there's WP:NODEADLINE so we can wait until that is concluded, if you wish - although there's nothing that prevents having this discussion now and waiting to implement it until then. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Shouldn't any changes happens after the closure review is complete? It seems awfully presumptuous to say
- Oppose This would put it into a "RFC won't get implemented until something else happens" mode. And the "something else" would need to get done by the people who generally don't like the result of the RFC and so this is this would likely be a recipe to not implement the RFC. Any plan needs to acknowledge the underlying reality that the sentiments of the folks who maintain this guideline are, on average, in conflict with the sentiments of the overall community and the results of the RFC on this issue. There is no "good" or "bad" in this, it is just human nature. North8000 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose suggestion no. 2 (including this) and 3 If the material was voted in the RfC to be removed, then it should be removed. I'm fine with removing what's there and maybe as a placeholder putting a link to the RfC in question with some sort of "under construction" note. Leaving it there is currently generating more "Keep because meets WP:FOOTY" votes at AfDs for stubs that would no longer meet the new FOOTY criteria. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose option 1 - there is no reason to knowingly create bad policy text while the AN review is ongoing; some kind of disclaimer would be fine if people really think that the RfC link itself won't have enough impact at AfD. I see a lot of editors jumping around celebrating their victories, and this from the perspective of someone who had no part whatever in the RfC or the subject area. (I also see lots of logical and conceptual flaws in the discussion itself - the real question, what counts as SIGCOV in the domain of sports biographies?, hardly seems to have been asked much less answered. New policy text that punts the question more emphatically to the GNG (sic.) won't do anything meaningful to resolve the real issues raised by the RfC, IMO.) Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose option 1 mass-removal of guidelines should wait until the AN thread is closed. NemesisAT (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support option 2 as multiple projects (football, rugby union) are working towards updated tighter guidelines based on the RFC outcome. Oppose option 1 as the attempt to do this led to a non sensical outcome where none of the guidelines made any sense. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support option 2 as a good compromise while WikiProjects are working on the tighter guidelines. --SuperJew (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose option 1 whatever we do does need to leave the guideline in a workable state and not an incoherent mess. Attempts to implement option 1 haven't done that. Hut 8.5 20:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Remove the rubbish now. That is what we voted. We had a proposal for change in participation numbers but that was not passed. It is time to remove the druk, and get rid of all this rubbish immediately. It is time to free Wikipedia from being a sports database.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support option 1 if it is remove all the language implying participation inclusion immediately. We passed this measure, it is time to let it be implemented. It is these guidelines making participation grounds for article inclusion that has made Wikipedia a mess. It need to go now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, this is a great example of what I described above as
a lot of editors jumping around celebrating their victories
, FWIW. Newimpartial (talk)`- Wikipedia is being filled with rubbish sports stats pages masqueraading as biographies. This needs to stop. There are thousands of biographies sourced to one sports table. This is not at all acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- That is an entirely sensible position, but is only tangentially related to the questions asked in that sprawling RfC, much less the consensus emerging from it. It seems to me that without high-level consensus about what counts as SIGCOV for a sports figure, editors are going to keep taking at cross-purposes in this domain. Newimpartial (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's all looking a lot like Brexit to me, so we've got a few more years of this to go. Nigej (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: I don't think that the mentality implied by your "celebrating" phrase is the case. I think that there are folks who are thinking that this change is needed and widely supported and so are happy about the decision and want to make sure it gets implemented but that's pretty well the extent of it. Knowing that it might be a tough moment for the people who think opposite to me who are also dedicated wiki volunteers doing their best to me makes the psychological aspect of "winning" a minus. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Being
happy about
- and rushing to implement - the part of a closure thatyourone's team agrees with, while ignoring the parts of the consensus/close that you disagree with, is what I personally mean byjumping around celebrating
. By no means do I attribute that activity to anyone based on their !votes or POV in the RfC, only their subsequent edit history. Newimpartial (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)- At least some of those relate to the changed rules for Olympic notability. That policy was approved in October. No one is rushing to implment it at all. A rush would have implmented it in 2021.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting that, because some of those edits relate to 2021 RfC, we are not to notice the ones that rely on an RfC from which the dust has not yet settled? That has the appearance of sleight of hand. Newimpartial (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: I am not in any way a member of any "team", and I think that it is harmful to the process to posit such things or view things in that way. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did I state or imply that you were, though? Nope. Perhaps recalibration of filters is required. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Well you did say "your team" in a response that was specifically to me. But if you indicate that that's not what you intended, cool. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- I believe I have now clarified this, above. I don't think of that use of "your" as ambiguous, but it clearly is. Newimpartial (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Well you did say "your team" in a response that was specifically to me. But if you indicate that that's not what you intended, cool. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Did I state or imply that you were, though? Nope. Perhaps recalibration of filters is required. Newimpartial (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to see how implementing the result of an RFC is
jumping around celebrating
. At some point, the result needs to be implemented, and it is generally better to do it earlier rather than later. In regards to your later question about190,000 redirects to properly sourced lists, say, and 10,000 non-redirect articles
, that would assuage my concerns even if it doesn't assuage it for others - although I believe there is sufficient coverage for more than 10,000 non-redirect articles. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- At least some of those relate to the changed rules for Olympic notability. That policy was approved in October. No one is rushing to implment it at all. A rush would have implmented it in 2021.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Being
- Wikipedia is being filled with rubbish sports stats pages masqueraading as biographies. This needs to stop. There are thousands of biographies sourced to one sports table. This is not at all acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- For the record, this is a great example of what I described above as
- there are porbably in excess of 100,000 articles on Olympians in Wikipedia sourced only to databases. The sheer number of articles involved is staggering. I estimated that there may be about 150,000 total Olympians, but the number may actually be in excess of 200,000. I estimate we probably have "articles" on over 95% of them, but the articles are in the vast majority of cases very poor. In many cases one editor created 10 or more such articles in about that many minutes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we had 190,000 redirects to properly sourced lists, say, and 10,000 non-redirect articles, would that assuage your concern? Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, every attempt I have made to create a redirect in this matter has been reverted, often with zero improvement. Also even when we have clear cases of a name having other uses that are at least as notable we have to fight to get some improvment. Over 90% of the very small improvement has been brought about by under 10 articles making nominations, maybe under 5. I have severe doubts that there are 10,000 people who competed in the Olympics who are notable, and if there are over 9,000 of them are notable despite Olympic actions not because of it. Which is another huge problem with the druk produced by a certain editor, he did not product Biographies, he produced Olympic actions reports for both athletes and artist in the Olympic arts competition, that neglected to say anything of substance about the rest of the person's life, even in cases where other parts of their life, such as being a military leader, were actually much more noted and covered than their brief participation in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a "no". Carthage must clearly be destroyed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will not be satified until every article is sourced to sources to a level to meet GNG. This is not an unresonable expectation. The fact that Wikipedia has articles that have lasted for over a decade with no sources at all, and other articles that have lasted that long sourced only to a source we consider unreliable is not a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If that is your goal, how often would you say you look for and add sources to these under sourced/unsourced articles? Rikster2 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Every sport figure that had been an Olympic competitor I have done searches for information in multiple ways before nominating them. The bigger question is why we tolerate editors creating such sub-standard articles in the first place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If that is your goal, how often would you say you look for and add sources to these under sourced/unsourced articles? Rikster2 (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I will not be satified until every article is sourced to sources to a level to meet GNG. This is not an unresonable expectation. The fact that Wikipedia has articles that have lasted for over a decade with no sources at all, and other articles that have lasted that long sourced only to a source we consider unreliable is not a good thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a "no". Carthage must clearly be destroyed. Newimpartial (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well, every attempt I have made to create a redirect in this matter has been reverted, often with zero improvement. Also even when we have clear cases of a name having other uses that are at least as notable we have to fight to get some improvment. Over 90% of the very small improvement has been brought about by under 10 articles making nominations, maybe under 5. I have severe doubts that there are 10,000 people who competed in the Olympics who are notable, and if there are over 9,000 of them are notable despite Olympic actions not because of it. Which is another huge problem with the druk produced by a certain editor, he did not product Biographies, he produced Olympic actions reports for both athletes and artist in the Olympic arts competition, that neglected to say anything of substance about the rest of the person's life, even in cases where other parts of their life, such as being a military leader, were actually much more noted and covered than their brief participation in the Olympics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If we had 190,000 redirects to properly sourced lists, say, and 10,000 non-redirect articles, would that assuage your concern? Newimpartial (talk) 21:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Allowing Sports specific projects to build there own guidelines is highly questionable. They engage in rhetoric designed to drive away and keep away those who do not support flooding Wikipedia with sports stats tables masquerading as bios. Such as this statement "Quote: Wikipedia has way too many articles on football players. We need to severly reduce that number, and we need to reduce it now. This from Johnpacklambert really does disturb me. There are millions of football players who are notable on this planet. You want to purge it? If you act like that you don't belong on wikipedia. You should be perm topic banned from anything related to this subject with that attitude. Govvy (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)" This is not a place that is open to any and all views on the acceptability of sports bios. It is built around an a priori assumption that sports bios are good, and involves invoking rhetoric to try and silence and drive off those who hold any other view of sports bios. Exactly why should we let places that engage in this level of rhetoric and intimadation and abuse towards those who do not hold the party line be where we develop our notability guidelines. They show no recognition that there is a problem, that their refusal of any and all improvmenets is constantly feeding the problem, and they contenance this type of rhetoric which tries to silence those who do not tow the party line.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- If the actual problem is the bot or bot-like creation of stubs, that is a behavioral issue to be dealt with under the bot policy ((q.v. WP:MEATBOT, not a problem for notability policy. Just as geostubs aren't a problem to be solved by GEOLAND reform, sports stubs aren't a problem to solve through NSPORTS repeal. This is somewhat akin to using a nail gun to deal with a rodent infestation - just not a tool suited to the task. Newimpartial (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- why are you going to the Football project and stirring up trouble anyway? You aren’t there to help them build a workable guideline so why don’t you just stay away and let them work through it? Rikster2 (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- I have made suggestions on what level of participation should be included. All thoughts and views should be welcomed. People should not be hounded and attacked for sharing their views, and suggesting that being payed to do something for one day should not be seen as stirring things up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support option 1 per the closing statement for subproposal #3, which makes it crystal-clear that consensus is to eliminate certain criteria:
"I gave little weight to the 'no replacement'-type arguments as they miss the point of the proposal and are procedural rather than substantive concerns. To be clear on how they miss the point: the replacement is the GNG which applies to all articles; the proposal was to eliminate certain special criteria, so of course no alternative criteria were specified."
This doesn't rule out developing replacement criteria in the future, but we shouldn't wait until that time to implement the current consensus. I also share North8000's concern that this could be used to filibuster or delay implementation of consensus, perhaps indefinitely. After all, this is the topic area where "eventually" (i.e. "reliable sources must eventually be provided") effectively means "never". –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC) - Support option 1. We don't delay introducing consensus; we introduce it, and if that raises new issues that need to be settled, we do that. For example, we are already working to resolve the issues it will introduce with Rugby Union, and I believe we are making good progress on developing a solution that all sides will be happy with. BilledMammal (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support option 2 (and happy with RandomCanadian's placeholder text). Oppose option 1 as it has proved unworkable, RfC or no RfC. I would also add WP:NOTPAPER. A lot of sports biographies are not necessary, but their existence doesn't mean there's no room for more useful content. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option 1 certainly proved contentious but it has not proved unworkable (how could it when bold implementation and cleanup was never completed), and nor would it since SPORTCRIT/BASIC/GNG still apply. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose option 1: Find workable solutions within each WikiProject, as is currently happening on Rugby and Football. Nuking isn't a viable option. Felixsv7 (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support option 1 Consensus should be implemented immediately. Potential replacements are a separate discussion. Avilich (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- You folks are wasting your time. This poll is local consensus and can't modify the global consensus of an RfC. There is WP:NORUSH, so we can wait for the RfC close review before attempting to implement the RfC. If the RfC close for #3 is endorsed, the participation criteria will be removed. Levivich 16:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
- Option 4 Per the close, the placeholder is
other SNG criteria or the GNG are met
. Therefore, call out another SNG, WP:NBIO, and use as a placeholder:has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
Although this is redundant, it will provide clarity in cases that would otherwise be confusing (such as with Rugby, where it appeared that the only way to be notable was to play in the Women's World Cup). Failing that, Option 1. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
New NFOOTBALL guideline proposed
I have put together a new guideline proposal. It can be viewed at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football and discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football. Godspeed! GiantSnowman 12:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Suggestion for team sports
I haven't had as much time to contribute to this discussion as I thought I would, but I wanted to make a suggestion that would suit coverage of team sports. I'm in the process of writing an outline history of Ulster Rugby in the professional era with team/season articles, on the model of what's already been done for Munster and partially done for Leinster and Connacht: the current season being 2021–22 Ulster Rugby season, the earliest being 1995–96 Ulster Rugby season. It seems to me this is a more informative way of covering team sports than having lots and lots of short articles that say no more than "player x played for team y in season z". If each team/season page has a squad list, that information is available there, without the need to make a separate page for each player, with the information presented in a better-organised way, and sourced to reputable media sources. I'd like to suggest that WikiProjects for team sports might like to encourage interested editors to take this approach rather than make lots of uninformative articles on individual players. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Nicknack009: How would that work? Say take the page of Jack McGrath (rugby union), to what page do you redirect him? 2021–22 Ulster Rugby season, 2020–21 Ulster Rugby season, 2019–20 Ulster Rugby season, or 2018–19 Leinster Rugby season, etc? --SuperJew (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but almost all sports leagues and teams fail WP:NSEASONS and the resultant articles your suggest would undoubtedly fail WP:NOTSTATS and/or WP:OR. However "List of x-nationality/country y-sport players" would almost always be ok (and provide suitable redirect targets, unlike season articles for players with multi-season/team careers). wjematherplease leave a message... 18:06, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to redirect anything anywhere. Certainly not a player like Jack McGrath, whose achievements with multiple teams, including not only Ulster and Leinster but also Ireland and the British and Irish Lions, certainly make him notable. I'm suggesting it as an alternative to making masses of new articles about non-notable or marginally-notable players, which I thought is what this exercise was all about, not mindless deletion of players with distinguished careers, although maybe this is the mask slipping. Undifferentiated lists of players are uninformative and, frankly, worthless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information needs to be organised to be useful. I'm doing my best to be constructive and make the encylopedia informative and useful. If policy makes that impossible, then that policy is wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have overlooked that sportspeople at the margins, or those who simply don't meet the criteria for an article, are those most likely to be a member of a team that doesn't meet NSEASONS. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to see what that has to do with it. The point of the RfC is that we can't say a player is necessarily notable as an individual just because he's played for a notable team or in a notable competition. Non-notable teams and competitions don't come into it. All I'm trying to do is find ways of complying with the RfC without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Most teams and competitions that are notable don't meet NSEASONS. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- OK, I get the message. I've tried to assume good faith, but I'm clearly trying to compromise with zealots. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- Most teams and competitions that are notable don't meet NSEASONS. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I fail to see what that has to do with it. The point of the RfC is that we can't say a player is necessarily notable as an individual just because he's played for a notable team or in a notable competition. Non-notable teams and competitions don't come into it. All I'm trying to do is find ways of complying with the RfC without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- You seem to have overlooked that sportspeople at the margins, or those who simply don't meet the criteria for an article, are those most likely to be a member of a team that doesn't meet NSEASONS. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:19, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to redirect anything anywhere. Certainly not a player like Jack McGrath, whose achievements with multiple teams, including not only Ulster and Leinster but also Ireland and the British and Irish Lions, certainly make him notable. I'm suggesting it as an alternative to making masses of new articles about non-notable or marginally-notable players, which I thought is what this exercise was all about, not mindless deletion of players with distinguished careers, although maybe this is the mask slipping. Undifferentiated lists of players are uninformative and, frankly, worthless. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information needs to be organised to be useful. I'm doing my best to be constructive and make the encylopedia informative and useful. If policy makes that impossible, then that policy is wrong. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Can we take the drama out of this and have a fun transition?
Folks on both sides of the RFC are volunteers working to build a good encyclopedia. The debate is merely seeing things differently on how best to do that. Even amongst those opposing #3 there seems to be a fair amount of acquiescence with raising the NSports bar a bit. Those who maintain NSports should realize that the rest of the community had a very difficult time trying to have input to change the large complex NSports guideline. Proposing and passing a change on the "did it professionally for one day" criteria was way to grab onto a specific to do this, plus deal with the specific criteria often cited as the poster child for NSports setting the bar too low.
Amongst all of the "oppose" folks on #3 I saw very few that said "we need to have a participation-only way in". Most opposes were for other reasons such as the change being too jarring, too fast, not needed, or removing something without a replacement. (though the closer noted that GNG is a replacement if/when needed). What this means is that there may not be be a substantial conflict on the fundamental question in #3 which is: "To have or not have a "participation-only" way in?"
Could it be possible for nearly everyone involved to just dive in and do an enjoyable process of implementing this change? Could this be a recipe:
- Everyone (including persons who maintain NSports and ones from both sides of the debate)just start quickly making the bare minimum changes needed to implement #3. I.E. remove the "participation only" criteria, and, if it breaks nearby text, make the bare minimum changes needed in the nearby text to avoid breaking it.
- We need to recognize that #1 will still leave loose ends, and needs to fill in NSports. Let's make the process freer / easier than usual for the folks who maintain those sections to make the needed changes. Including WP:BRD being considered to be a norm during the transition.
- A 60 day pause in applying the #3 criteria to articles that are already patrolled or autopatrolled by yesterday.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- +1.
- To those who, like me, supported these subproposals, we should recognize that it's a big change, that a lot of editors have fought against for years, and it's going to take more than a few days to "digest", as it were. It's perfectly reasonable to hold off on the implementation of an RFC while the RFC close is under review (and, as I should have recognized earlier, that review process started with the first message on the closer's talk page).
- To those who did not support these subproposals, we should recognize that at least some of the subproposals clearly have consensus and are not going to be overturned (some are not even under review), and there is no reason to hold up the partial implementation of the uncontroversial parts while other parts are under review.
- N8k brings up another good point, which is that, after changes are made to NSPORTS, nobody should rush to mass-nominate articles for deletion. Articles that previously met the SNG that no longer meet the SNG should be tagged with {{notability}}, and some reasonable amount of time should be given before they are nominated for deletion. (60 days sounds reasonable to me.) (And don't forget WP:BEFORE.) Levivich 22:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 14 March 2022
Restore this revision, which had been the consensus version before its removal by an edit warrior. Avilich (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
- This should not have been removed and had been added uncontroversially. A closure review being ongoing (which does not appear like it's going to overturn the closure, FWIW) does not give carte blanche to people to WP:STONEWALL a consensus which they don't like. WP:DROPTHESTICK applies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: This comment does not make me feel better about the idea of unprotecting the article and using p-blocks on anyone who edit wars, because I'd rather not have any at all. If I protected the WP:WRONGVERSION, that's too bad. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)