Tags: Reply Source |
Sportsfan 1234 (talk | contribs) Tags: Reply Source |
||
Line 301: | Line 301: | ||
:::You need to stop playing victim. Its getting old, fast. This also isn't a discussion exclusive to Judo, hence the inclusion of World Cup, as other sports title their world tours as "World Cups". Secondly, this discussions is about including events that are held on a yearly basis. Do we include them or not? Where do we draw the line? Literally no other sport has "World Tour" events listed in their infobox. I propose a list of years/medals like in Tennis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer], where major events such as the Olympics show medals, while World Tour events held everywhere are listed in a subsection in the infobox. [[User:Sportsfan 1234|Sportsfan 1234]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan 1234|talk]]) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
:::You need to stop playing victim. Its getting old, fast. This also isn't a discussion exclusive to Judo, hence the inclusion of World Cup, as other sports title their world tours as "World Cups". Secondly, this discussions is about including events that are held on a yearly basis. Do we include them or not? Where do we draw the line? Literally no other sport has "World Tour" events listed in their infobox. I propose a list of years/medals like in Tennis [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer], where major events such as the Olympics show medals, while World Tour events held everywhere are listed in a subsection in the infobox. [[User:Sportsfan 1234|Sportsfan 1234]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan 1234|talk]]) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::Your wanted discussion may be broad, but your edit war is narrow and held over judo related articles. We shall discuss them, and not the whole project. In any case, You can't revert edits and delete information from articles, when in other articles of the same nature the information is available. Stop edit warring, stop threatening me after I've warned you not to edit war, and discuss the matter and not the person ''("You need to stop playing victim..")''. [[User:CLalgo|CLalgo]] ([[User talk:CLalgo|talk]]) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
::::Your wanted discussion may be broad, but your edit war is narrow and held over judo related articles. We shall discuss them, and not the whole project. In any case, You can't revert edits and delete information from articles, when in other articles of the same nature the information is available. Stop edit warring, stop threatening me after I've warned you not to edit war, and discuss the matter and not the person ''("You need to stop playing victim..")''. [[User:CLalgo|CLalgo]] ([[User talk:CLalgo|talk]]) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::You are playing victim, claiming I am threatening you when we are having a civilized discussion, get a grip please. We are discussing this on WP:SPORTS so this discussion is NOT just related to judo. "When in other articles of the same nature the information is available" which is single sourced. Please point out to me bio's of any other sport with World Series events linked in their infobox. I will wait. [[User:Sportsfan 1234|Sportsfan 1234]] ([[User talk:Sportsfan 1234|talk]]) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:49, 3 July 2022
WikiProject Sports | (Rated Project-class) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11 |
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II. |
Implementation of consensus infobox changes for current seasons
At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_172#Designating_current_seasons_in_infoboxes, I read clear consensus to use text rather than images to designate the current season. I went ahead and made the change at {{Infobox award}}, but since I'm not a sports person, I'll leave the implementation for sports templates such as {{Infobox football league}} to you all here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
- I've added a DNAU tag to this thread; feel free to remove it once you have finished implementation. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
FIBA Archive
Please tell me whether you see the same mess I do, on this website. It had been working fine until recently and now I see everything stuck on the left side there. The problem is, I edited dozens of basketball articles last year with those references from FIBA Archive. And now I don't know what to do with it. Maiō T. (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Ranking changes in template
Hello everyone! I've recently started updating squash-related Top 10 world ranking templates, and was wondering if there's a standard way of showing ranking changes? The PSA World Tour rankings has this information (e.g. player X moved up 2 spots) so it's easy to find, but I'm not sure if there's some standard images or code to use for this? Tried searching the archives, but didn't find anything so I thought I'd ask here. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nevermind, I found several solutions described in the documentation for {{steady}}, which also links to further templates if one also needs to show a value next to the icon. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
How should we deal with sports team navboxes? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Added by Primefac (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) see note below
Starting this Rfc after a Tfd discussion last month on March 7, 2022, concerning navboxes for sports teams created for tournaments in their respective sport. The templates nominated were kept as there had been previous consensus to keep the men's Cricket World Cup men's team's navboxes from the August 21, 2018 Tfd. An issue that was raised by the nominator and the lone delete vote, plus my comment on the nomination, is that there is confusion on what templates should be kept and which one should be deleted. This should not be only of concern to the Cricket Project from both Tfd's mentioned, but to all sports projects on Wikipedia. Current squad, players on the active roster, navboxe are not of issue with this rfc.
I'd say there are three options on how to deal with the confusion/issue of all these squad templates. Do you support or oppose the following:
- The team/squad tournament navboxes that should be kept are the ones that win the tournament/championship. Since the winning team is more notable than a runner-up or the team that lost. For instance, winners of the World Series, SuperBowl, and the NBA Chamiponships only have naboxes for teams that won. Not for teams that didn't or qualified for a playoff spot or won a round in a playoff series. From what I could find on the MLS teams, they don't have a squad template for teams that win the MLS Cup. I'm of this opinion because if we have navboxes for every team that didn't win the championship, then it would fall under Creep and Cruft. Wikipedia still has issues with these two areas.
- The tournament squad navboxes that should be kept are the winning and runner-up teams.
- All tournament squad templates should be kept regardless.
If there are other options then they should be stated below.
Another issue is also the creation of such templates done by editors in good faith, but in my view, it clutters up Wikipedia just like the massive backlog of unused templates. Sports projects should consider adopting policy on creating navboxes related to their scope and decide which among the options above or ones suggested by others will be best suited for the respective project.
After posting this Rfc, I'll inform the various sports projects for their input.
Pining the following people who have been involved in such discussions, not just the two mentioned above, at Tfd's: Lugnuts, Joseph2302, Nigej, Wjemather, PeeJay, Spike 'em, Frietjes, Jonesey95, Gonnym, Pppery, Number 57, Izno, Plastikspork --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- WikiCleanerMan, I have added a one-line question-statement to your RFC at the top line - you are welcome to rephrase it as you like but RFC opening statements (that get copied over by the bot) need to be short. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding it. I just forgot about it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can you rephrase it, so that a support/oppose response (or at least, a choice between a small number of options) means something? An rfc question of "How do we deal with X?" is great wrt brevity, but is too vague for an Rfc opener, and sounds a lot like the "Bad questions" listed in the right-floated box at WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding it. I just forgot about it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Just to clarify that we're talking here about navboxes created for sports teams created for tournaments etc (which would include the Olympics etc). There are many "current squad" navboxes around but I think we ought to ignore these in the current discussion to keep it focused. As I noted in the discussion noted we have a situation like Mithali Raj#External links where you have to click three times even to open the navbox. Given that the supposed purpose of a WP:NAVBOX is to help the reader navigate between articles, it seems to me that many uses of this type of navbox are not actually designed to aid navigation but to be decorative award-type banners at the bottom of articles. As noted, these are created in good faith by editors who presumably think that this type of navbox is what Wikipedia is all about, having seen countless examples in other articles. The reality is that if a reader wants to know about the squads in the 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup they will go to that article and navigate from there, not using the navboxes (indeed I've been to a couple of the Men's World Cup finals (1979 and 1983) and that's exactly what I did to remind myself of those long-ago days). Personally I'd be happy to get rid of all of them, since hardly any actually aid navigation. However, what's most important is that we provide some sort of "rule" as to what is and what isn't suitable. Does Mithali Raj really need 18 tournament squad navboxes (plus a current squad)? How do these aid navigation? Nigej (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Can I just advocate for a complete deletion of navboxes for teams who did not win major tournaments? I'm not even a big fan of this, but if we start creating templates for teams who don't win (especially in games like football where people move between clubs during tournaments) is incredibly crufty. Surely we can handle this with categories better anyway? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking as a TFD admin, the current precedent is to delete this type of navbox for all but the top 2-4 teams (outcome depends on the sport and the discussion). Very rarely do non-medal-winning team navboxes get kept. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even for runner-up teams, it seems like a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Those get deleted as well sometimes. I'm not advocating either way, just reporting on discussions I've closed over the years. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Squad_navboxes for a not-at-all-comprehensive list of discussions. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Although when I proposed deleting some netball navboxes of this type (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Template:Northern Ireland squad at the 2019 Netball World Cup) it was branded as "Yet another example of an editor with nothing better to do." And netball is nothing like the worst sport in this area, in fact it's one of the better ones. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Even for runner-up teams, it seems like a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Speaking as a TFD admin, the current precedent is to delete this type of navbox for all but the top 2-4 teams (outcome depends on the sport and the discussion). Very rarely do non-medal-winning team navboxes get kept. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- And we have situations like {{2021 United States Ryder Cup team}}/{{2021 European Ryder Cup team}} where it makes no sense to me to keep the winning team and delete the losing one. Keep both or delete both. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd be up for deleting both. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ideally we should deal with this sport-by-sport, and the scope of the RFC is too wide, what kind of navboxes are we discussing, all of them? If it is a 'current roster' template for a club (NFL team, soccer team etc.) that gets updated when players leave or join, that is fine. However, if it is the '1991 X squad' for a club then delete - and we have done so for soccer at TFD for years, even for those that win major championships. If it is an international tournament (such as World Cup or Olympics) with a squad that would never change, then keep it. GiantSnowman 20:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Why exactly do we want a current club template? Don't the articles already have a table in them with this info? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Personally I feel that navboxes for teams that have competed in major tournaments (World Cups, Olympics etc) are ok. However when navboxes are created for team that have won a yearly domestic tournament for example, or created for each team in a yearly tournament I don't see fit. GiantSnowman makes a good point above on it being different for different sports, as in rugby union teams competing in a four-yearly world cup I think is fine with having a navbox, but a navbox for a yearly domestic tournament, or non-notable international tournaments aren't required. In some sports it'll be different though. A navbox for each Super Bowl winning team may well be of interest and use to the reader, but a 2021 Women's domestic cricket trophy winner may not be as necessary and of use. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Surely the question in not whether they "may well be of interest and use", but whether they actually aid navigation between articles, supposedly the sole purpose of a WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I feel that my point still stands and navboxes for winning/running up sides, and teams from major tournaments and events aid navigation as a reader may be looking for articles on other people from those events, but yearly domestic or non-notable international ones don't, as they for certain individuals will lead to large number of navboxes, which clutter articles and don't aid navigation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Surely the question in not whether they "may well be of interest and use", but whether they actually aid navigation between articles, supposedly the sole purpose of a WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- We're not discussing "current squads" but we are discussing navboxes like {{Afghanistan football squad 1948 Summer Olympics}}. Nigej (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is not clear from the RFC. In fact, the RFC says that it deals with "all these squad templates", which indicates that we are discussing 'current squads'. GiantSnowman 20:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty clear from the nomination, before and after the quoted part, that WCM is talking about tournament templates. All of their examples are also for tournaments. Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be helpful if WCM clarified their opening statement. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Current/Active team squad navboxes are not of discussion for this rfc. Sorry if that wasn't clear. They don't represent any major issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be helpful if WCM clarified their opening statement. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Pretty clear from the nomination, before and after the quoted part, that WCM is talking about tournament templates. All of their examples are also for tournaments. Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- That is not clear from the RFC. In fact, the RFC says that it deals with "all these squad templates", which indicates that we are discussing 'current squads'. GiantSnowman 20:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hell, I feel strongly that navbox proliferation is a big problem, and has gone completely ridiculous. If someone proposed deprecating them altogether, I'd be in favor. But that being said, even championship-only navboxes aren't the answer; we all know sports where longstanding rosters on perennial champions can easily result in players with a dozen or more boxes. Ravenswing 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of what the numbers are precisely, but it seems there are more squad navboxes for non-championship teams than there are for winning teams. One example is Mithali Raj's page where there are only six navboxes for championships and twelve non-championship teams. I don't think players who have been on multiple winning teams consist of too many navboxes at the moment. Derek Jeter has won the world series only five teams and has five Yankees World Series champion team navboxes. LeBron James has only seven championship, NBA and international tournments, navboxes. The only clutter of sorts on James' page is all the award navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nikola Karabatić the best handballer has at the moment 11 navboxes for the national team (2012 onward). I thinks other users will create the boxes before 2012 too. In the end this would mean he would have around 20 boxes. If only first places at the Olympics, World Championships and Euros were allowed he would still have 10 boxes. This is only with the national team. If also navboxes for championships club seasons would be created this would mean he would have additionally 19 navboxes. In the end he would have around 30 boxes. In my eyes this is too much. I personally think only navboxes about the current team should be allowed or ells only navboxes with the national team and not about club championships seasons. 🤾♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of what the numbers are precisely, but it seems there are more squad navboxes for non-championship teams than there are for winning teams. One example is Mithali Raj's page where there are only six navboxes for championships and twelve non-championship teams. I don't think players who have been on multiple winning teams consist of too many navboxes at the moment. Derek Jeter has won the world series only five teams and has five Yankees World Series champion team navboxes. LeBron James has only seven championship, NBA and international tournments, navboxes. The only clutter of sorts on James' page is all the award navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm of the view that all sports should be considered together. A navbox is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia" (WP:NAVBOX). Surely issues relating to {{Japan men's football squad 2020 Summer Olympics}} and {{Japan men's volleyball team 2020 Summer Olympics}} are fundamentally the same. And even outside the multi-sport area I don't see why Japan at the nnnn football world cup should be treated differently to Japan at the nnnn volleyball world cup (or whatever). In addition the issue of WP:TCREEP, making navboxes less useful as their numbers in each article increases, applies universally. If we're going to keep these, we need arguments based on their usefulness for navigation. Nigej (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Although having said all that, I would assume that if we were to embark on a significant deletion of these via TfD, then each sport would be considered separately at that stage. Not knowing the logistics, I'm hoping we can have a WP:SPORTSNAVBOX (or whatever), detailing a consensus approach, which would enable a TfD nominator to make a proposal based on that. I think that would carry more weight than the current situation, where the nominator usually argues on the basis of earlier TfDs. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree, something along the lines of WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV, particularly "avoid over-proliferation of navigation templates" sounds like a good idea. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Although having said all that, I would assume that if we were to embark on a significant deletion of these via TfD, then each sport would be considered separately at that stage. Not knowing the logistics, I'm hoping we can have a WP:SPORTSNAVBOX (or whatever), detailing a consensus approach, which would enable a TfD nominator to make a proposal based on that. I think that would carry more weight than the current situation, where the nominator usually argues on the basis of earlier TfDs. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I can only speak for the sports that I spend the most time working on, but I feel like things are okay as they are for soccer, rugby union and cricket: current squad templates for most existing clubs (at least at the top level where info is available), and historic squads for all teams at major international tournaments (e.g. World Cups, European Championships, etc.). That last one should only apply to competitions that take place every few years though, so not the Six Nations in rugby union, and not individual cricket tours (even the Ashes). Things seem okay in the NFL sphere too, where every team has navboxes for their current roster and any championship years. I honestly don't believe this is excessive. – PeeJay 08:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- They may not be excessive but the question to be answered is a different one, that is whether they really serve their sole purpose, which it to help readers navigate between articles. Nigej (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Current squad templates seem fine for navigation for me (even if for example a cricketer may be in 2 or 3 teams at the same time). I already raised a discussion for some cricket templates here], and wouldn't be averse to removing some others (does the fact that two people played together at the 1992 Cricket World Cup really mean that you'd use that to navigate between them, for instance?) I do however think this will be hard to do at a general sports level, as there will be nuances for different sports (which lots of sports editors won't know about, if they aren't involved with that sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- If we were to go down the route of saying that tournament team templates are ok for the winning team, then I agree that a further restriction of saying that even some of these are of doubtful use, that would certainly need to be done at the individual sport level. Nigej (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe they serve their intended purpose. I can't speak for every reader, but I use the navbox templates a lot. – PeeJay 10:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Current squad templates seem fine for navigation for me (even if for example a cricketer may be in 2 or 3 teams at the same time). I already raised a discussion for some cricket templates here], and wouldn't be averse to removing some others (does the fact that two people played together at the 1992 Cricket World Cup really mean that you'd use that to navigate between them, for instance?) I do however think this will be hard to do at a general sports level, as there will be nuances for different sports (which lots of sports editors won't know about, if they aren't involved with that sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- They may not be excessive but the question to be answered is a different one, that is whether they really serve their sole purpose, which it to help readers navigate between articles. Nigej (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I get the feeling people like to tinker with this site just for the sake of it. I don't see what value removing these navboxes would have, so I vote to just keep them as is. If there's too many of them, so what?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- When navboxes are used as decoration rather than for their stated purpose of navigation between closely related articles, articles become cluttered with the navboxes actually being a hindrance to navigation, defeating their purpose. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe any of these are used decoratively, they all serve as useful navigation points between related articles. Talking about the FIFA World Cup squad navboxes, I don't believe it's at all unreasonable to expect to be able to navigate between the members of the Republic of Ireland's 2002 World Cup squad, for example. – PeeJay 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- When navboxes are used as decoration rather than for their stated purpose of navigation between closely related articles, articles become cluttered with the navboxes actually being a hindrance to navigation, defeating their purpose. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- A few comments. Just to reiterate, the RfC isn't about general squad templates (current, former, historical, etc.) but about tournament squads. Lets not sidetrack this discussion. I agree with Nigej that this is a general issue to all sports and should not be treated as a case by case issue. I also agree with Malo95 that having 20 navboxes for an individual just for tournament teams is a real issue as at that point editors are more likely to just to not use it. I think WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns are valid here. While Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is an essay, I agree with that statement - not everything needs a navbox. Playing in the world cup but coming last with zero wins is not really an achievement. Some countries have it easier qualifying for the tournament than others (European qualification is hard while that isn't correct for all zones). I can see the value in the winning team and partially in the runner up. Another point that is worth noting is that a lot (all maybe?) of these templates don't have an associated category which is pretty telling. If we don't deem these teams to be worthy of categorization then a template is probably also not appropriate. If this RfC passes and there still is an issue, we can have a follow up discussion later - not everything needs to be solved now. So support the 2nd option. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think the default should be no, unless there is a project-specific consensus for major tournaments, so defaulting to keep for the most major soccer, rugby, and cricket tournaments. These navboxes would either help me navigate between players on the same World Cup squad or provide me a clear view of which other players were on the same World Cup squad in sports with important quadrennial World Cups, but they should be the exception rather than the rule. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Since this RFC has expired today, I think there is consensus for the first and second options. Normally, prior to this discussion, if a runner-up squad template or a non-runner-up squad navbox was nominated at Tfd, it was based on the merit that it was not capable of navigation and that it was of a not notable team, unlike a championship-winning team. So, I guess, even with the consideration of the case-by-case for the sports project as noted a few times such as the soccer, rugby, and cricket projects, consensus can change. WP:SPORTSNAVBOX is a great idea so there is a clear procedure on what navboxes for teams should and shouldn't be created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Sports links at TfD
Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
GA Reassessment
Major League Baseball has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
"Sports film" classification
Hey all, I've opened a discussion over at [[1]] about classifying films as "sports film" for the list. So far it seems to be somewhat up the editor at the time. Does the Sports WikiProject have any sort of standardisation for this sort of thing? -- NotCharizard 🗨 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
RFC: Notability guidelines for association football
Do you agree or disagree with the proposal shown here for the notability criteria for association football (soccer)?
Proposal
|
---|
Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:
Players and/or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at [link]. |
Ivan Milenin (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with this proposal, while noting the list of notable leagues is still a work in progress. Provided this shuts out leagues that do not receive significant coverage. OGLV (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose While it is more defined and detailed, this is basically a rehash of the old FOOTY notability guideline[2], that Village Pump decided we should remove based on the criteria being simply participating(see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability). While one of football's problem was the large list of leagues and define the "fully professional" aspect of them, the Village Pump was looking at several sports and with exception of the Olympics, removing simple participation as a valid criteria. This proposal would still be considered notability based on particiaption. There were discussion for alternatives/replacements, but none could be decided and for now just using WP:GNG is the replacement. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose this specific proposal hasn't been discussed anywhere beforehand, so shouldn't have been put up for RFC. This is almost the same wording as the old WP:NFOOTY, which was depreciated. Some proposal to add criteria for NFOOTY could be tabled into an RFC at some point, but not this undiscussed proposal. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. If discussion had preceded this proposal, it would never have reached this stage; it lacks the necessary concision and clarity, while also deferring to a non-guideline page. It looks like an attempt to reinstate the old unacceptable guideline. If a solid proposal cannot be formulated from the discussions on this, i.e. one that enjoys a good level of consensus from those discussions, one should not be brought forward here. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above comments and the fact that we need something very precise. Phrases like "with some qualifiers depending on which confederation", "such as ..." and "... and other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" make it unacceptable. Nigej (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose: Participation-based criteria was shot down sports-wide. Full stop. Looking back at the discussions in which the OP participated at the time, he cannot be unaware of this. People are going to have to get used to creating soccer articles based on whether the subjects meet the GNG, and preferably beyond the mass sub-stub creation that (a) resulted in the breathtakingly absurd figure of one of SEVEN biographical articles being of soccer players, which (b) led to the open revolt shooting down participation criteria NSPORTS-wide. Ravenswing 03:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per above comments, and because it doesn't include all aspects of the proposed entry within the entry, instead linking to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football. I also don't believe it is appropriate to hold this discussion here, rather than at WP:NSPORT or preferably WP:VPP. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Comments
- I was chosen at random by a bot to comment this proposal. I waited in the hope that I would see comments from others. It's difficult for me to make a comment without seeing first some arguments in favour of it and against it. At this time, I only have a question. What is the purpose of having a criteria to determine that
significant coverage is likely to exist
? It seems to me that the important thing is whether there is actually some coverage. Even if we know that coverage is likely to exist, we still have to find that coverage. Otherwise, there is nothing to put in the article, except information that would fit better in a list. Conversely, even if coverage is unlikely to exist, if it actually exists and it's notable, then there is content for an article. Again, I am not against or in favour of it. It's just the question that comes to my mind. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)- Dominic Mayers, I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the rationale is that said "significant coverage" that is presumed to exist might not be readily accessible to many English WP editors, and that would disproportionately affect players from non-Western and/or underpriviledged countries; who would, presumably, be as notable as their English or American counterparts (because there is no reason to assume they wouldn't be), but cannot be immediately confirmed due to the inaccessibility of sources (many of which would exist only in physical printed media) from those countries to English or American editors. Said articles affected would be stubs, since, as you note, there would be no coverage to fill them with. But the idea is that, at some time in the future, those stubs may be turned into full articles when sourced coverage is brought forth. (The deletion policy is not that an article already contain content, only that it is notable and suitablesources exist from which content CAN be created in the future). Hope that helps :) SirTramtryst (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is what criteria would be used, if not the known coverage, to create these stubs? Is the proposal to create a stub for all players that meet these requirements, even though we know there is a possibility that some might not have any coverage? It seems to me that we need evidence of sufficient coverage in addition to the proposed criteria before we create a stub. Note that a reference, even if it's printed material that is not available online, count as coverage. If the issue is whether coverage that is not available online is valid coverage, then the RfC asked the wrong question. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's a completely undiscussed proposal, which is different to the main proposals being discussion elsewhere. I'm sure this breaks some RFC rule, as this proposal has not been discussed anywhere beforehand. The inevitable failure of this poorly thought out RFC shouldn't be seen as a reason to reject any future, decently discussed football notability RFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Where to discuss other purposes of this matter if RFC fails to work at this stage? Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's a completely undiscussed proposal, which is different to the main proposals being discussion elsewhere. I'm sure this breaks some RFC rule, as this proposal has not been discussed anywhere beforehand. The inevitable failure of this poorly thought out RFC shouldn't be seen as a reason to reject any future, decently discussed football notability RFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- What I don't understand is what criteria would be used, if not the known coverage, to create these stubs? Is the proposal to create a stub for all players that meet these requirements, even though we know there is a possibility that some might not have any coverage? It seems to me that we need evidence of sufficient coverage in addition to the proposed criteria before we create a stub. Note that a reference, even if it's printed material that is not available online, count as coverage. If the issue is whether coverage that is not available online is valid coverage, then the RfC asked the wrong question. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Dominic Mayers, I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the rationale is that said "significant coverage" that is presumed to exist might not be readily accessible to many English WP editors, and that would disproportionately affect players from non-Western and/or underpriviledged countries; who would, presumably, be as notable as their English or American counterparts (because there is no reason to assume they wouldn't be), but cannot be immediately confirmed due to the inaccessibility of sources (many of which would exist only in physical printed media) from those countries to English or American editors. Said articles affected would be stubs, since, as you note, there would be no coverage to fill them with. But the idea is that, at some time in the future, those stubs may be turned into full articles when sourced coverage is brought forth. (The deletion policy is not that an article already contain content, only that it is notable and suitablesources exist from which content CAN be created in the future). Hope that helps :) SirTramtryst (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fwiw, I think this proposal is likely irrelevant. I can't think that any major international players such as these wouldn't meet GNG regardless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. "other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" for instance, seems to include the old 4th division (and 3rd south, 3rd north), way below international level. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Check this [out if this suffice your concern]. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, that's a crazy backdoor to "all professional leagues". This proposal had me thinking it was literally just top leagues that directly mentioned. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Check this [out if this suffice your concern]. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's true. "other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" for instance, seems to include the old 4th division (and 3rd south, 3rd north), way below international level. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Association football at FAR
I have nominated Association football for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Sonny Leon
I recently created an article for Sonny Leon, the jockey of Rich Strike, the winner of the 2022 Kentucky Derby. His notability has been questioned. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
90min services section edit request
Hello editors, I'm M and I work for Minute Media. I was hoping one of you might be kind enough to look over an open edit request for the Services section I posted on the 90min talk page. I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. Looking forward to working with you all and thanks in advance for taking a look. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Some articles do not mention what sport they cover
There are a significant number of sport articles, usually lists of season results, or tournament results, that make no mention of what sport is involved. This is not helpful to the reader who does not already know the sport, and makes it difficult to compose short descriptions. I fix what I can, but it is tedious to work through several categories from a season article to find out that the Melbourne Renegades are cricketers. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- You may need to give me a better example. That article starts:
The Melbourne Renegades are an Australian professional men's Twenty20 franchise cricket club based in Melbourne, the capital city of the Australian state of Victoria
. Whilst this isn't optimal wording, the lede sentence specifically says cricket club. Are there articles that don't say the sport in the lede sentence? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC) - FWIW, this is better:
The Melbourne Renegades are an Australian professional men's cricket team from Melborne, Victoria. A Twenty20...
Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, |
Work on new article "1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game" of Australian Rules football completed
The lengthy and arduous task of compiling the accurate and detailed article on the 28 October 1916 exhibition match of Australian Rules football, contested in London between two teams of AIF soldiers, is now completed. Please see both 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game and Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Titlename of tennis tournaments
Hi, we on the tennis project have incurred into some problems regarding the choice of titlename of the main article of a tournament. We have internal guidelines who says to "avoid if possible sponsor name in the title of main article". We agree on that and the project has been consistent on avoiding them, whenever is possible. (We use sponsor names in the title only on yearly editions).
In the specific case, though, we are at a stall between two opposite interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME policy, of what is "common, recognizable, short, coincise" titlename .
There are two interpretations i resume here, but i really want the discussion to be continued there, because some users have participated and someone made an hard point to not move the discussion from there.
So, only for the sake of helping you to have a grasp of the whole situation, the two different approaches to the aforementioned wiki policy are:
Top sources (advocated by Fyunck)
The common name is the name most used by sources, prominently by top quality newspapers (ha added some specific links), which are the sources we use for writing the article itself. Plus historic names are better than recent ones. He argues on having little compromise but just between these two criteria when choosing the title.
Top search results (advocated by me, Opencross)
The common name is the most searched name (in google searches) among those prominent sources (official, newspapers and such) use to refer to the tournament. So we should choose the one which is a compromise over the most looked at, and thus used more by people. Preference should be given, in case of similar popularity, to the city name most looked at, if two locations are used.
This resume is not complete or detailed, it's just a resume, I don't want to dig into it further, you can read more about it and the counterarguments to both proposals here and in the link posted in the first lines above ( which is the main section of this link), and continue the discussion there.
I think that, being this a general case over a wikipedia policy, the main project should be involved and give their opinions on. Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note - It is incorrect to say Top Sources are advocated by one person. It is advocated by (Fyunck, Adamtt9, Tvx1). I tried a simple correction but it was reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Note - Result was "Not Moved." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that RM was closed not even after 12 hours i give notice on Tennis project's talk page about this invite.
- I talked with the admin who closed it, and he said the RM was already longstanding and got automatically moved into backlog, so he went on to close it. About this related question, he suggested generically to just not repeat the RM thread. And i'm ok with that.
- So, for the question about WP:COMMONNAME over tennis tournament's main pages, i would like to hear if anybody has some opinion about it.
- This is clearly about a more general wikipedia policy, which is greater than a single thread as it involves a whole lot of tournaments. I mean, it should have been clarified in the tennis guidelines since its start, because yearly editions of tennis tournaments change names every 3-5 years on average, even shorter periods lately, so it's important to know how to make a stable title for the main page. Opencross (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a case by case basis as no two tournaments are alike and there may be other tournaments with the same name already. We look at sources and we look at tournament history. I don't think it has anything to do with policy. Guidelines are pretty flexible and common sense always has a look. This is exactly what WikiProject Tennis was made for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's clearly not a case-by-case choice, since there are already (generic) guidelines about titlename on tennis wikiproject. Otherwise there would not have been any mention about that and all would have been left to the 3-4 users who are browsing that talk page everyday to decide.
- Anyhow, you already expressed your opinion on the matter, as i did, and i reported both of them above, in a fair way, as resume.
- I want to listen to sport users' opinions about the issue, since it's a question over the general policy, and i think they need to have their saying about. And if they don't think so, they will show that.
- In any case it's not up for you to decide who can or cannot talk. Or to change other people comments on this talk page without even asking or posting an edit summary about (which is against WP:TPO).
- Jeez, you didn't even wait for others opinions to show up... you already started to preemptively advance your POV even here...
- Let others talk, already. Opencross (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You know something.... get that chip off your shoulder already. I added two names to those you missed in your post here. That's it. I thought I was doing a favor. Obviously not since you reverted it. I'm cool with that but I was forced to explain it in an extra post. I'm not stopping people from talking and it has nothing to do with "policy." ZIP. You posted this at Tennis Project and three editors joined in, all disagreeing with you. I have no idea really why it's even posted here but that's your prerogative to do so. And I posted nothing except the correction until you reverted it. There are generic guidelines but each event is a little different so we take them case by case. So please stop with the nastiness towards me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's a case by case basis as no two tournaments are alike and there may be other tournaments with the same name already. We look at sources and we look at tournament history. I don't think it has anything to do with policy. Guidelines are pretty flexible and common sense always has a look. This is exactly what WikiProject Tennis was made for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could someone pass up some examples for this discussion as to articles and the different options available? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we had one RM just closed about "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships".
- This was the historical name used back when the tournament was created:
- Fyunck wanted to make some small at best some tweaking over this title using "Rosmalen Championships", or "Rosmalen Open" with less enthusiasm, so to say.
- I did some research on google searches with the notable alternatives and found out this list of commonly used titlenames ( in decreasing order of popularity):
- 's-Hertogenbosch Open
- Rosmalen Open
- (ATP 's-Hertogenbosch)*
- Libéma Open
- Rosmalen Championships
- Rosmalen Grass Court Championships
- 's-Hertogenbosch Grass Court Championships
- (ATP/WTA 's-Hertogenbosch and ATP/WTA Rosmalen were taken into account for the sake of knowing which location was more widely known in regard to ATP/WTA tag, which are the main professional tennis circuits. And the numbers are like 10 to 2 in favor of 's-Hertogenbosch, especially if you take out the 's- part, which most people dispense of as difficult).
- So, as you can see my proposal was on top of the list, the actual used the second to last, and Fyunck compromise was third to last.
- And that was when the argument of historic name and giving preference to "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships" as the most used title by sources was advanced ( adding a few name of newspapers that use that name for the tournament).
- I asked here but it was too late for the RM which was already longstanding and it was closed.
- I'm not asking to re-open that, i am just using a well-searched example, so as you can clarify the interpretation over the WP:COMMONNAME wiki policy of having a titlename that should be "recognizable, natural, short, coincise". Which titlename would you have chosen from the ones above and especially why? That would be of great help for the project, since it would clear the way to the correct interpretation in similar cases. Thank you.
- p.s: further example:
- Cincinnati Masters, titlename used on en.wikipedia which is abnormously less cited than Cincinnati Open on google search: a ratio of 1 to 68 !
- Another one U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships Houston, actually used on wiki to U.S. Championships Houston. Ratio of 1 to 13. Opencross (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- But your ratios you are presenting don't paint an accurate picture as your Google searches aren't precise enough and are presenting skewed data. Your search of US Championships Houston isn't presenting every case of that exact term but instead every instance of US and Championships and Houston. I would bet that a lot of search hits have absolutely no relationship to the tennis tournament itself. Same can be said for Cincinnati Open. Any website that has the words Cincinnati and open will come up in your search. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- For example, the tenth page of results for Cincinnati Open leads to a list of restaurants available for reserving a table through OpenTable. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- And Cincinnati Masters/Open also has a convoluted history. When it became a men's Masters level event in 1990 there was no women's event. The ladies had no Cincinnati event for 30 years when in 2004 it came back as a minor low level tournament. Then in 2009 the women upgraded it to a Premier level event. The press usually calls it the Cincinnati Masters event though it was never really called that by the women's tour... they use Cincinnati Open. I'm not saying that after 14 years as a high level women's event that it shouldn't now be titled Cincinnati Open... that's a very good topic.... but it gives you an idea of what Tennis Project has to go through in figuring these things out per sourcing and duplicate article titles and titles that best fit all concerned throughout an event's history. Cincinnati has a 123 year history. It's ok since that's exactly what the project is designed to do since editors that deal with and have a love for tennis know many of these nuisances. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski:I don't know of any except the one brought up here. It was at Project Tennis talk and was closed by Ellsworth without much fanfare. A general view would be that unlike most sports, tennis tournaments take on the name of their current sponsor, and those sponsors change all the time. Something like the Miami Open. If you scroll down the list of years you see links to every yearly event... and the yearly name changes all the time. Some years it's the Lipton International Players Championships, sometimes it's the NASDAQ Open, sometimes it's the Sony Open, and sometimes it's the Miami Open. We have to put the tournament name under some sort of title so by longstanding consensus we use a non-sponsored sourced name that encompasses all the events held at the location. Sources usually make that easy-peazy so we have Miami Open. Of course in this case there are two golf events and two tennis events with that name so we make it Miami Open (tennis) and made the other events Miami Open (golf) and WCT Miami Open. It's sort of case by case. Each individual yearly event we use it's name for that year so for 2012 for instance it under 2012 Sony Ericsson Open. Tennis is really screwy this way.
- Now this method is not in question here. What came up in this case was the non-sponsored name of the event had several varieties in sources. The original name of the event, "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships" which is quite long but has longstanding consensus of use in tennis articles. In sources you also see the tournament itself with it's sponsored name this year as "Libema Open Grass Court Championship", the press calling it the "Rosmalen Championship", "Rosmalen Open", or "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships." It is located in the town of Rosmalen just outside of the city of 'S-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands. It was brought to Tennis Project 11 days ago and no one agreed to move it to the " 'S-Hertogenbosch Open" so it was closed. There may have been some wiggle room with "Rosmalen Championships" or "Rosmalen Open" but that wasn't the move request. I don't see a policy or even guideline issue here at all. Tennis Project does the best it can in these situations by looking at sources, original non-sponsored tournament names, and trying to avoid the same name as another Wikipedia article. It is not always easy to be sure. I hope that helps explain the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- As you can see User:Lee Vilenski, this is the type of answers you get when you start a discussion on wiki tennis project's talk page.
- One argues over the 10th page of google search, the other says wikipedia is as good as it is, but provides no supporting rationale for that (apart from counting votes in the last RM, and that "consensus in use" if has it ever existed). Opencross (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- And as a brand new editor you should stop insinuating your prima donna hierarchy and start working as a team. All I see from you is complaining or personal attacks when it doesn't go your way. It's getting quite old. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's quite the opposite, i had proficuous discussions with all other users in here, i have no prejudice whatsoever, until well...i got personal attacked. Do i need to mention what offenses i received? I think you 've already red them in the topic on the tennis TP. So, just to set things straight i'm not making things up.
- I can see that there's some hurdle to let other ideas in and to think about them, to the point it has been evoked a "consensus in use" which simply doesn't exist in any wiki policy. That is tantamount to make things up.
- I can see the rationale behind that, to keep tennis project just as it is, and delete by walling off with specious arguments and recasting into voting any disliked proposal, instead of discussing it in the merit and explain why it is good or bad, which again is and should be the standard answer on tennis' tp, as it is everywhere else.
- Moreover, i also see that that dislike grows to the point of making personal point modifying otherwise good recent edits of the proposal filer in order to "put him into his place". This has been a marked behaviour by all of you three. I don't take that personally at all, i don't think i own articles i edited on, i welcome anyone digging into them and making useful edits. But i think that those bad edits of yours made out of a whim are just the kind of acts which make tennis pages full of errors, incongruous and inhomogeneous, in short they make tennis wikipages unreliable to a new user looking through them. And i think no matter how many edits one could make, (one thousands.. five thousands), it will always be there and will draw back and nullify any attempts to reorganize and correct it. Opencross (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- And as a brand new editor you should stop insinuating your prima donna hierarchy and start working as a team. All I see from you is complaining or personal attacks when it doesn't go your way. It's getting quite old. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Ok. This is probably a bit overblown at this point. From the above it sounds like we are talking about a single article, and not a series of articles - although if I'm wrong let me know. There are some policies that are relevant. WP:COMMONNAME (and by association WP:NAMECHANGES), WP:CONCISE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NATDAB. Some people will point to google source results as to why a name is the most common used, but this is a bit of a fallacy. We are talking about an event that has run for 32 years, and has had a certain sponsor from 2018 onwards. My actual worry is that each of the individual events uses a different sponsorship name (see 1999 Heineken Trophy), which are realistically the issue here. We do have events that have different sponsors each year, such as the FA Premier League and the World Snooker Championship, however, each individual event follows the main title of the event. So, the issue is what name should be applied across these events. I'm a bit surprised that there is any issue at all, as the events take place at the Autotron Rosmalen. If the event only had one sponsor, and was only known by that name, there would be no issue, as we can use sponsors in the name in that instance, see Etihad Stadium, and 1985 Kit Kat Break for World Champions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Asking for help with Dodgeball World Championship
Hi everyone,
I've started an article on the Dodgeball World Championship, but as I lack experience, I'd really appreciate help with editing and improving it. Thanks! Spiritof73 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
90min lead edit request
Hello editors, I'm M and I work for Minute Media. I was hoping one of you might be kind enough to look over an open edit request for the lead of the 90min article I posted on the 90min Talk page. I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. Looking forward to working with you all and thanks in advance for taking a look. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Essentially unreferenced 'results' articles
Hi - I'm looking to get some eyes from experienced editors on sports topics on an issue with a couple of articles. I've indef blocked one of the editors involved for double (or more like quadrupling) down on personal attacks, but the content issue they were angry about doesn't sit well with me so I'd appreciate some input from others.
Draft:United States results in women's freestyle wrestling was recently created in article space; it's essentially an alternative version of the article United States results in men's freestyle wrestling, but with the content changed to show the results in the women's sport. It was draftified on the grounds that it was effectively unreferenced - there are three external links given in the 'references' section, none of which is live, and looking at archived versions it's not obvious how they support the content. To make any of the content verifiable, some work would need to be done on the referencing.
The author of the article took exception to the draftification, and started throwing around accusations of misogyny, which they refused to step back from after multiple warnings and attempts to explain the NPP review process, hence they block. While the personal attacks were unacceptable, I have some sympathy for their argument that the sourcing on the old men's article is no better than that of the new women's one - this is correct, it literally has the same three external links as refs, which don't directly support any of the content. So my question for editors here is whether anyone has the knowledge of appropriate sourcing in this subject, and the time and interest, to improve on the sourcing for both articles, improving the verifiability of the existing men's article, and allowing the draft women's article to be moved back into mainspace uncontroversially. Is anyone up for this? Girth Summit (blether) 11:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- If the men's article cannot be appropriately verified, then anything unverified should be removed as per the usual rules. If this leaves us with an empty article, then it should be deleted. Same is true for the women's article; the only reason it got punted back to Draft is that it's not 12 years old (and thus not immune from dratification). Primefac (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- That being said, having just looked at the men's article, I think the main issue with either of these pages is that it is effectively a "summary" article, wherein the content might actually be sourced at the related page (e.g. the 1904 Olympic wrestling info is at the related Olympics page). Of course, this means that the references should be copied over, but then we go down a rabbit hole because the latter related page barely has references itself... Primefac (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, that's my issue - both articles are summaries, almost lists - they are probably verifiable if someone were willing to do the leg work and add the sources. Not my area at all though, I didn't want to start hacking away at anything if there are sources out there that could simply be added to support the existing content. Girth Summit (blether) 12:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Medals sections of infoboxes
What do we think should be in the medals sections of infoboxes. I have seen and used age-limited events such as Youth Olympic Games, Universiade, FIBA Under-17 Basketball World Cup and regional championships such as FIBA Under-16 Americas Championship, NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships. It seems that if an event is important enough to have its own article, it is fair game for medals. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA aquatics events (see here). These are for YMCA competitors who are between the age of 12 and 21 who have not represented any post high school institutions. These competitions don't seem to have articles on WP, so I am wondering if I could include these in medals sections of infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I got no response here. I did get a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes. I am not following this page anymore, but if you have further comments, comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think only international global events (World Championships and MSE games) should be included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please keep the discussion in one place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think only international global events (World Championships and MSE games) should be included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
"Women's Championship"
FYI, the usage of Women's Championship ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion; see talk: FA Women's Championship -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:HC Visé Basse Meuse#Requested move 21 June 2022
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HC Visé Basse Meuse#Requested move 21 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
World Governing Body
I am hoping someone involved in the WikiProject Sports can tell me if there is an official manner in which an organization becomes a World Governing Body for a specific sport, other than an organization claiming the title. I am particularly interested with respect to the sport of Pickleball. The International Federation of Pickleball has claimed to the the world governing body since it was created by USA Pickleball in 2010, but USA Pickleball has since withdrawn. The World Pickleball Federation was formed in 2018, but has fewer member countries than the IFP. USA Pickleball hasn't stated what they plan to do, but they represent a majority of the current world pickleball players. Canada, representing the second largest number of players, is a member of the WPF. India, representing the third largest number of players, is a member of the IFP. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
- None, of course. (As it happens, I recently read a long and informative article on the pickleball governance controversy.) Organizations can claim for themselves just about anything they please, and the degree to which they can strongarm other would-be umbrella organizations and regional/national leagues varies greatly. Until the late 1950s, for instance, FIFA's control over soccer wasn't absolute; the four British home islands national federations collectively controlled changes in rules for the game, and even now FIFA cannot change the rules without the concurrence of at least two of those federations. The National Hockey League and National Basketball Association respectively thumb their noses at the IIHF and FIBA, and they're too powerful to overrun or threaten. Boxing's another famously fragmented sport. Ravenswing 00:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- That was pretty much my thinking on the matter, but I thought maybe someone in the Sports Wikiproject might be aware of something I wasn't. Would you be able to share or direct me to the article on pickleball governance that you refer to? Thank you for your response. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Addition of World Cup/Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals to infoboxes
Should World Cup/Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals (for events being held every year) be added to info boxes of athlete bios? My initial thought is they shouldn't be, and the infoboxes should be reserved for continental/world championships, Olympics and other major MSE events. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? What does everyone else think? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:CLalgo has been added Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals to judo articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only editor/sport having these medals added to the info boxes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Sportsfan 1234: This is a discussion you should have started before reverting edits, on the verge of edit warring, on the articles of Shady El Nahas, François Gauthier-Drapeau and Keagan Young. Now, let us break your question to its relevant components. In judo, the subject at matter, Grand Slam/Grand Prix events are part of the IJF World Tour and award as many (GP), or more (GS), world ranking points as continental championships.[3] These medals can be found in the infoboxes of most judoka, much thanks to the hard labor of JanPleun. World cup events aren't held in judo for many years now, and irrelevant to the subject at hand. CLalgo (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You need to stop playing victim. Its getting old, fast. This also isn't a discussion exclusive to Judo, hence the inclusion of World Cup, as other sports title their world tours as "World Cups". Secondly, this discussions is about including events that are held on a yearly basis. Do we include them or not? Where do we draw the line? Literally no other sport has "World Tour" events listed in their infobox. I propose a list of years/medals like in Tennis [4], where major events such as the Olympics show medals, while World Tour events held everywhere are listed in a subsection in the infobox. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your wanted discussion may be broad, but your edit war is narrow and held over judo related articles. We shall discuss them, and not the whole project. In any case, You can't revert edits and delete information from articles, when in other articles of the same nature the information is available. Stop edit warring, stop threatening me after I've warned you not to edit war, and discuss the matter and not the person ("You need to stop playing victim.."). CLalgo (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You are playing victim, claiming I am threatening you when we are having a civilized discussion, get a grip please. We are discussing this on WP:SPORTS so this discussion is NOT just related to judo. "When in other articles of the same nature the information is available" which is single sourced. Please point out to me bio's of any other sport with World Series events linked in their infobox. I will wait. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your wanted discussion may be broad, but your edit war is narrow and held over judo related articles. We shall discuss them, and not the whole project. In any case, You can't revert edits and delete information from articles, when in other articles of the same nature the information is available. Stop edit warring, stop threatening me after I've warned you not to edit war, and discuss the matter and not the person ("You need to stop playing victim.."). CLalgo (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- You need to stop playing victim. Its getting old, fast. This also isn't a discussion exclusive to Judo, hence the inclusion of World Cup, as other sports title their world tours as "World Cups". Secondly, this discussions is about including events that are held on a yearly basis. Do we include them or not? Where do we draw the line? Literally no other sport has "World Tour" events listed in their infobox. I propose a list of years/medals like in Tennis [4], where major events such as the Olympics show medals, while World Tour events held everywhere are listed in a subsection in the infobox. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello @Sportsfan 1234: This is a discussion you should have started before reverting edits, on the verge of edit warring, on the articles of Shady El Nahas, François Gauthier-Drapeau and Keagan Young. Now, let us break your question to its relevant components. In judo, the subject at matter, Grand Slam/Grand Prix events are part of the IJF World Tour and award as many (GP), or more (GS), world ranking points as continental championships.[3] These medals can be found in the infoboxes of most judoka, much thanks to the hard labor of JanPleun. World cup events aren't held in judo for many years now, and irrelevant to the subject at hand. CLalgo (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)