Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51 |
Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by MiszaBot II. |
Request from NPP'er that apparent conflict in "seasons" section be clarified
There's no dispute case or anything like that, I just see a large amount of these.
This section says:
- Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements.
- Team season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
I see a lot of "stats only" professional team season articles with only a pablum token sentence or two of prose. If one interprets #2 as an SNG criteria, then it conflicts with #1. Or if one interprets #2 as merely advice on building an article (not a part of the SNG criteria), then it is not in conflict with #1 but really doesn't belong in a SNG. Also #2 contains what could be interpreted as an impossible-to-judge hypothetical "can be" Could y'all tweak that section to clarify? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think someone creating an article about a season should include sufficient independent sourcing to demonstrate that WP:NEVENT is met, without any guesswork for those of us who do patrolling. (t · c) buidhe 03:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'd interpret no. 2 as being an explicit reminder that "the article can still be unsuitable for inclusion if it fails WP:NOTSTATS". I wouldn't be opposed to removing the "It is strongly recommended that" and simply having "Such articles should be redirected [...]", to remove the unnecessary degree of uncertainty this creates. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure what sports this is referring to -- or perhaps all in general. In the cases of NFL football, MLB baseball, NHL hockey, NBA basketball, and major college football, it's clear that seasons are notable and that season articles are encyclopedically appropriate. If such articles are under-developed and/or under-sourced, the solution is to improve the article rather than redirecting or deleting. In the college football world, there is a major effort underway to substantially improve season articles, but it's a time-consuming and incremental process. If there is an intention to engage in mass redirecting of such articles, it is something that should first be discussed with notice to the impacted projects. Perhaps such a discussion would even help spur folks to dig in and improve the articles. Cbl62 (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I should distill it to an example. As a NPP'er I look at a brand new article for a season for a top level professional soccer team in a medium sized country. It's a "stats only" article with one "stats only" source. Does it pass the SNG for existence as a stand alone article? North8000 (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- IMO the key issue is whether or not the season passes WP:GNG with WP:SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, independent sources. If so, the article creator/proponent should be able to demonstrate that, and in that case, it should be kept (or allowed at new page patrol). If not, it should be deleted (or rejected at new page patrol). What we should not be doing, however, is redirectng articles on clearly-notable seasons simply because the "prose" section amounts to < 50% of the total bytes contained in the article. Cbl62 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- We could probably also could use clarity on what constitutes "top professional leagues". Some sports have applied an overly broad view, which was part of what led to the concerns in the VP discussion over simple participation standards. Frankly, I think NSEASONS is outdated and that we'd be best served by eliminating it and letting GNG by the guiding principle. Cbl62 (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- The language at issue was aded in 2007 per this diff. It was controversial at the time and resulted in some reverting back and forth (here and here). The discussion surrounding it is here at subpart 11. Cbl62 (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I'd like to explore that a bit more to force/clarify the issue. WP:notability says that if it passes either GNG or the SNG it's a pass. While SNG's nearly all say (in the non-operative wording) they they are mere predictors of GNG compliance, the operative parts of SNG's give an alternate criteria that bypasses a GNG evaluation. As an answer to my question about a SNG you basically said "do a GNG evaluation". So what about my question about what the SNG says about my example? Or fixing the apparent conflict in the SNG? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I frankly think the best way to reconcile the apparent conflict is to "ditch" WP:NSEASONS and rely on GNG. Per the 2007 discussion of the topic, the original insertion of the passage on "prose majority" was dubious (and pushed by an editor who has been inactive for 15 years). And as noted by Bagumba below, the "prose majority" provision conflicts with WP:ATD and the core notion that deletion is not to be decided on the current stubby state of an article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I never considered the current version of NSEASONS to be objective enough, but it'd be good to get more feedback from NPPers about this recent trend to gut NSPORTS and lean almost exclusively on GNG. Does this made their job easier, harder, no impact, etc, especially for those who might not be sports experts. —Bagumba (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I frankly think the best way to reconcile the apparent conflict is to "ditch" WP:NSEASONS and rely on GNG. Per the 2007 discussion of the topic, the original insertion of the passage on "prose majority" was dubious (and pushed by an editor who has been inactive for 15 years). And as noted by Bagumba below, the "prose majority" provision conflicts with WP:ATD and the core notion that deletion is not to be decided on the current stubby state of an article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
redirecting articles on clearly-notable seasons simply because the "prose" section amounts to < 50% of the total bytes contained in the article.
The guideline doesn't provide such a clear, nearly mathematical criteria. It doesn't even use "mostly". Maybe rewriting it asTeam season articles should contain substantial and well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.
would avoid such confusion? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. I'd like to explore that a bit more to force/clarify the issue. WP:notability says that if it passes either GNG or the SNG it's a pass. While SNG's nearly all say (in the non-operative wording) they they are mere predictors of GNG compliance, the operative parts of SNG's give an alternate criteria that bypasses a GNG evaluation. As an answer to my question about a SNG you basically said "do a GNG evaluation". So what about my question about what the SNG says about my example? Or fixing the apparent conflict in the SNG? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Judging an article by the current state of its prose conflicts with WP:ATD:
For a new page, I'd expect some indication that the season has coverage beyond a stats database. One indication would be citing a few sources of coverage by independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
I'm an active NPP'er. I was an advocate for getting rid of the "participation only" SNG. The result of which makes our job harder but IMO was a good move. A self-conflicting SNG also makes our job harder (actually makes it impossible regarding implementing the SNG properly) Which is why I'm here. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed changes so far
- Rewrite "mainly well-sourced prose" as "substantial and well-sourced prose"; to avoid giving off the impression of a mathematical criteria (although, IMHO, articles should still usually be more prose than stats).
- Remove "it is strongly recommended" from the second sentence to make this less of a mere suggestion and more of a practical guide how to deal with these
- Example diff: [1]
- RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What if you combined the two provisions into: "Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose." North8000 (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose.
The quality of the article isn't what determines notability. Its whether or not it has received significant coverage that determines if we should have an article on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)- Articles should be able to have substantial (not routine) and well-sourced (not random databases) prose - i.e. article quality tends to correlate with the level of coverage it has received. If a given season does not have sufficient sources to back up proper prose, then yes, it probably isn't notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, as BeanieFan11 suggests (I think) this is difficult. "Mainly" would mean that if, say, a list of matches, players, and a few stats were included that I would need to at least match that with well sourced prose. That's difficult at best, potentially impossible. And we'd end up deleting a tonne of perfectly decent, well sourced articles with some half decent prose bits. And we'd keep over-bloated prose articles that were difficult to read (and I'm a big fan of prose).
- I have no problem saying that there needs to be at least a prose summary of the season as well as an introduction - so long as there's a grace period when articles are first identified (say, six months) for people to add that - it takes time, after all. But "mainly" is too far. Fwiw I'm struggling to think of a sports season article that couldn't have that - which is what we should be aiming for I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- While I do believe prose is important, Blue Square Thing has hit the nail on the head. The "primarily prose" provision of sentence 2 creates a moving target for how much prose is appropriate. If one adds a 5,000-byte schedule of games or roster of players, does that then mean that a previously-adequate prose summary must then be increased by another 5,001 bytes so as to continue to be a mathematical majority of the overall bytes? Such a requirement is absurd and arbitrary and further shows that the "primarily prose" provision is fundamentally misguided. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
BeanieFan11, when I wrote it I already understood that per the strict logical parsing, such as yours, the only thing that matters is GNG and this provision and all SNGs have no reason to exist. But, unless you want to eliminate all SNG's I think that a proposal like mine is consistent with what SNG's defacto are...a way for bypassing GNG and conditions on using that way. Also it may be in line with the original intent of those two apparently conflicting provisions....that you can use the "season for top level professional team" bypass if the article is mostly well sourced prose. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
.a way for bypassing GNG
Such use of SNGs is, at best, deprecated; particularly given the recent NSPORTS RfC. NSEASONS should be a guide which prevents excessive-stats-and-routine-local-coverage articles. That's why I think we need to emphasise that articles should contain substantial prose (i.e. both "large in size" [without fixing a mathematical and absurd percentage] and "worthwhile; important" [to prevent having articles about the run-of-the-mill "season of the local Littletown high school team which gets a trivial mention in the Sunday newspaper"]); while similarly giving a good recommendation what to do with articles which fail to achieve this). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)- What about asking that these articles contain multiple sources that each devote a substantial amount of prose to analyzing a season, such that a comprehensive summary can be written beyond simple results tables? And NPPers can just check the sources for SIGCOV if they come across an article that only contains tables. That's basically restating GNG, but if we're going to have guidance on seasons at all we should be upfront about the sourcing needs and our expectation that it be possible to write a prose-heavy article on the topic. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Having further considered the matter, here are my thoughts:
- First sentence. NSEASONS' unlimited allowance of season articles for any "top level professional team" (regardless of sport, country, and time period) is grossly overbroad. It reminds me of the long list of top level professional football/soccer leagues (here) that was at the heart of the prior Village Pump discussion on "mere participation". It is an invitation to the creation of season articles on every season of every "top level" association football, baseball, rugby, cricket, basketball, softball, handball, field hockey, lacrosse, volleyball, roller derby, etc. team in every nation from Uruguay to Estonia and from Chad to Chile and from the 1800s to the 2000s. I don't think we need an SNG on season articles, but if we do have one, it should actually focus with precision on the particular sports and leagues (and time periods) where it is actually appropriate to presume notability. Clearly, season articles on the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, and Premier League are notable, but beyond that, it would be a monumental task to try to identify the particular leagues (and time periods) where season articles are always notable. IMO the GNG works fine, and we really don't need an overarching SNG on sports seasons.
- Second sentence. I am not a fan of the season articles that consist of one sentence of prose along the lines of "The 19xx _____ team was a football team that competed in the ____ league during the 19xx season." Such articles can and should be tagged for improvement. That said, the notion that articles must consist primarily of prose (or that prose must be "large in size") imposes a requirement that is absent in any other realm of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is premised on the fundamental notions that: stubs are OK so long as the topic is notable and the content is verifiable are reliably sourced; incremental growth is an accepted model for development of the encyclopedia; and there is no deadline.
- My bottom line: NSEASONS should be repealed. It provides no useful guidance on which seasons are actually notable, and the "majority prose" clause is utterly inconsistent with WP:ATD and other core concepts. Nothing useful + inconsistent with core values ==> get rid of it. Cbl62 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That said, the notion that articles must consist primarily of prose (or that prose must be "large in size") imposes a requirement that is absent in any other realm of Wikipedia.
I think having an end-goal (i.e. "featured-article status", if one likes) which might be different from the present state of some - or most - articles within a topic isn't that problematic. Notability guidelines are also more concerned with what "could" be written given existing (or assumed) sourcing than what "currently is" (per WP:NEXIST). If a season article - let's suppose it is one of the stereotypical season articles with one introductory sentence and some stats table - is brought to AfD, and there are sources found which provide enough coverage from which one could write substantial prose [I don't know, the season was a stand-out performance or otherwise stands out from the rest of the WP:ROTM bunch), then it should be kept. Conversely, if the same article is brought to AfD, and in this counter-example the sources are only local news or routine match play-by-play reports (even if such reports exist for the whole season), then it should be deleted or redirected. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "routine play-by-play match reports". Are you talking about a standard newspaper report? Or just a stats report?
- It's important to note, of course, that there are some pretty short Featured Articles out there: 1994–95 Gillingham F.C. season for example. I wonder if that article is, perhaps, a basis to work from as an exemplar of what's absolutely fine? Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- "local news": AFAIK, there's WP:LOCALCOVERAGE, but that specifically is a standard for companies and organizations, and WP:NORG specifically says it didn't apply to sports anyways (which I never understood, but here we are). At any rate, GNG's requirement for multiple sources adequately serves to rule out subjects from small towns that are only covered by their local news. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Then again, FA and GA assessments apparently don't take notability into consideration (which is absurd...), so saying season articles should aim for FA status could lead to excessively-detailed summaries of individual matches with little actual coverage of the season as a singular topic. JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, proseless stubs full of tables is not unique with sports, e.g. 2008 Stockton, California, mayoral election, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack. New guidance, if any, should be dealt with generically across all domains.—Bagumba (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "stats only" articles that I see are mostly sports and elections. And "sports only" ones seem to (like list articles) seem to have infinite possibilities. (e.g. "highest scoring players in the 2012 season in the xxxx league" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- Or the ridiculous Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, which survived AfD despite almost no coverage actually being directly on that intersection and it mostly being proseified stats. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The "stats only" articles that I see are mostly sports and elections. And "sports only" ones seem to (like list articles) seem to have infinite possibilities. (e.g. "highest scoring players in the 2012 season in the xxxx league" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I do have other concerns about some sports articles, but my mission in this thread (with my NPP hat on) is narrower.....to get this apparent self-conflict in the SNG tweaked so that the apparent self-conflict is fixed so that we will know how to to implement the SNG. And, the result should answer this question: Whether or not the SNG gives a temporary bypass to GNG for a stats-only season article on a top level professional team in a medium sized country. North8000 (talk) 23:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- IMO, NSEASONS is not a bypass to GNG, temporary or otherwise, and regardless of whether the article is 90% prose or 90% stats. Cbl62 (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever we think about it, in reality it is a bypass of GNG. The "either or" statement says this explicitly. And the practice of saying that if meets the SNG it's in also says thisNorth8000 (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposed revision
If there is not consensus to dump NSEASONS altogether, then we really ought to resolve the issues raised above by (a) specifying which leagues warrant stand-alone season articles, and (b) getting rid of the "majority prose" clause. Here is a first shot at doing that:
Stand-alone articles should only be created on individual seasons of sports teams where significant coverage exists in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual seasons of teams in the following leagues:
Association football: Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Eredivisie, Argentine Primera División, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Major League Soccer, Primeira Liga, Liga MX, Russian Premier League, Austrian Football Bundesliga, Belgian First Division A, Swiss Super League, Ukrainian Premier League, Super League Greece, Süper Lig, Danish Superliga, Belgian First Division A, Scottish Premiership, Israeli Premier League, Croatian First Football League, Czech First League, FA Women's Super League, National Women's Soccer League, Frauen-Bundesliga, and Primera División (women)
Gridiron football: National Football League, Canadian Football League, American Football League, All-America Football Conference, and NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision
Basketball: National Basketball Association, American Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, EuroLeague, Liga ACB, National Basketball League (Australia), Lega Basket Serie A, Greek Basket League, and Israeli Basketball Premier League
Ice hockey: National Hockey League, Kontinental Hockey League, Swedish Hockey League, Liiga, and Czech Extraliga
Baseball: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, and Negro Major Leagues
Cricket: Indian Premier League, Big Bash League, Pakistan Super League, T20 Blast, Caribbean Premier League, Mzansi Super League, Bangladesh Premier League, and Lanka Premier League
Rugby Union: Premiership Rugby, Top 14, Japan Rugby League One, and Super Rugby
Teams in other sports and other leagues (including collegiate teams) may also qualify for stand-alone season articles depending on the depth and extent of significant coverage received.
Team season articles should include substantial and well-sourced prose. They should not be bare lists of players or statistics. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
Cbl62 (talk) 12:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think you're probably better off just saying that significant coverage needs to exist - the list doesn't really work for me in the sports I follow I'm afraid. Given that the BBC covers every day of every County Championship fixture - and Wisden will have an article for each match and CricInfo will also have a daily article, for example, that would clearly need to be added to your list (by contrast, the BBC doesn't have an article for each T20Blast match - but it will have one for every match in The Hundred(tm), which isn't on the list). And then there's historic seasons which pre-date T20 cricket.
- In North American baseball I'd think that certainly AAA and AA teams get plenty of coverage. I don't know enough about Spanish language media in places such as Venezuela or the Dominican Republic, but given how popular the sport is there I'd be surprised if there wasn't coverage.
- Similarly in association football, every match Ipswich Town plays will be covered by the BBC and the East Anglian Daily Times (a regional newspaper) as well as more local coverage and, probably, dedicated football coverage elsewhere. And they're in the third tier of English football. The coverage would very clearly meet GNG, and will do every single season - and I would be very, very surprised if such coverage didn't exist for at least the top four tiers of English football, possibly the top six. I'd be surprised if other leagues in other countries didn't have similarly decent coverage - for example, both mens and women Swedish leagues. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think that we're starting to get into deeper topics which I think would get huge. In short, Wikipedia uses coverage as a gauge in two ways, one of the being that the sources choosing to cover is an indication. But this is an area where coverage is itself is primarily a form of entertainment and thus less indicative. But back to the narrower topic which is my request to resolve the apparent conflict in the SNG. My proposal (above) was basically to combine the two provisions (which was probably the original intent anyway) in essence that both conditions must be met if one wants to use this particular "way in". North8000 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Way too many leagues and way too large listing for this to be useful. If the choice is between having the current NSEASONS (which at least says that substantial prose should be present) and a large listing like this (which also buries the mention about substantial prose at the bottom of it, where it's even more likely to be ignored - as if SNG requirements for SIGCOV were not already ignored too much), I'm voting for the current NSEASONS. If the idea is to highlight the requirement for significant coverage; this should be done without having to make an attempted exhaustive but incomplete listing of which leagues may or may not be the source of SIGCOV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Agree on your opinion on the proposal. My reason is that proposal doesn't address the main narrow issue which is an apparent self-conflict in the SNG. But, to disagree with you, the current SNG doesn't require significant coverage. Of the two conflicting requirements, one requires that (to use the SNG bypass of GNG) it just needs to be a top level professional team and the other requires that it be majority prose. My proposal is that in order to use the bypass, it needs to meet both conditions. Te recap and tweak that, it would be to replace the current wording with:
- If an individual season article is for a top level professional team and it consists substantially of well-sourced prose, it is highly likely that it meets Wikipedia notability requirements.
- And replace the first phrase of the next paragraph with: "For teams that are not top level professional teams (such as college teams)"...
- North8000 (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with Cbl62 that NSEASONS should just be removed entirely. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, my proposal is a half-way measure. I'll boldly try it to see if it puts this to bed and resolves the self-conflict. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- Remove prose requirement, at a minimum. Per the guideline WP:NEXIST, we don't even delete over current level of sourcing, so it makes no sense to do so with prose. Per the policy WP:ATD:
Notability is independent of WP:GACR compliance.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.
- I don't think there is any such "requirement" to be removed. There is a strong recommendation, and IMHO, we do want to strongly encourage the presence of prose one way or another. WP:NOTSTATS is policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are confounding a topic's notability with its current content. A page patroller can incubate a page, or any other WP:ATD, if it doesnt demonstrate that it is notable, but do not mislead them that notability is related to the existence of stats tables or not.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the notability guideline should solely mention notability and ignore everything else - particularly in a topic like sports where stats and statistical trivia are so easy to find and generate. Providing helpful indications as to what kind of content is suitable or not for an article seems perfectly in line with this and other guidelines (for example, WP:NASTRO - another topic where anybody with even a little spare time could start going through databases - provides a guide on where to find sources and what to do with article subjects for which no suitable content exists). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Although I appreciate the desire to throw in some guidance on what's expected in an article of type X, I'm not fond of having this guidance centralized on a single page, and I don't think it should be conflated with guidance on Wikipedia's standards for having an article. There can of course be topics that do meet Wikipedia's standards for having an article, and yet editorial judgement can determine the content is better included on another page. I think topic-specific style advice pages are a better approach to help guide editors on these aspects of content and subject hierarchy. isaacl (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- We could have guidance on sources that don't establish notability e.g. WP:PRIMARY source stats databases, non-independent coverage from a player's team, league, etc. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- I support the type of guidance that Bagumba suggests. We can probably all agree that the following sources would not contribute to the notability of season articles: statistical databases (e.g., Sports Reference LLC databases, College Football Data Warehouse); press releases, yearbooks, game programs, media guides, and other materials published by the team itself or by the league in which the team is a member; and rosters, box scores, passing mentions, etc. Independence and depth of coverage are key for a source to contribute to notability under WP:GNG Cbl62 (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think the notability guideline should solely mention notability and ignore everything else - particularly in a topic like sports where stats and statistical trivia are so easy to find and generate. Providing helpful indications as to what kind of content is suitable or not for an article seems perfectly in line with this and other guidelines (for example, WP:NASTRO - another topic where anybody with even a little spare time could start going through databases - provides a guide on where to find sources and what to do with article subjects for which no suitable content exists). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:13, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- You are confounding a topic's notability with its current content. A page patroller can incubate a page, or any other WP:ATD, if it doesnt demonstrate that it is notable, but do not mislead them that notability is related to the existence of stats tables or not.—Bagumba (talk) 12:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any such "requirement" to be removed. There is a strong recommendation, and IMHO, we do want to strongly encourage the presence of prose one way or another. WP:NOTSTATS is policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Once again the list of association football leagues is too narrow. GiantSnowman 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I assumed we'd established that the lists above were utterly useless. If we didn't then, well, they are. The cricket ones alone are an utter joke and make the assumption that no notable cricket whatsoever was played prior to 2003. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Blue Square Thing: Instead of simply bashing my first cut as "utterly useless", you could propose an alternative list of cricket leagues where notability might be appropriately presumed. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, there's WP:OFFCRIC as a guide. I mean, I'd go with the GNG (which would, btw, be far wider than that and would allow for changes that happen in terms of notability over time). But that list's been there for a while and would probably be the starting point if anyone were to ask the wikiproject. Which would probably be a good general starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Blue Square Thing: Instead of simply bashing my first cut as "utterly useless", you could propose an alternative list of cricket leagues where notability might be appropriately presumed. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Trying to determine the "notability" of a sports season is a fool's errand. Articles about seasons are spin-offs of the articles about the teams (for team seasons) or leagues (for league seasons). A season is not a separate topic from the team/league that played it; it's a part of the larger topic. Season articles shouldn't need to be independently notable: they should be separate sub-articles whenever combining them in the parent article would make the parent article unwieldy or too long. If they are separated out, they should follow whatever organization makes sense: one sub-article per season, or maybe per decade or per era, whatever the length of content requires. It's even possible that some teams/leagues might only have sub-articles about one or a few significant seasons. It's not possible to determine a rule that applies across multiple sports, leagues, and teams. WP:SPINOFF should govern season articles, not WP:N. (And I'm a GNG purist.) Levivich 21:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Mind blown. Interesting perspective. Seriously. Cbl62 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think to be more specific, season articles are spinouts from the history of the entity in question. I agree that how to organize this info should be subject to editorial judgement. As per the notability guideline,
Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
Separate articles for each league or team season might not the best way to cover the corresponding history. isaacl (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Swimming notability
I met someone at a party this weekend who seemed somewhat dismayed not to have a WP article once I started talking about my WP experience. I asked her was she an All-American (she said honorable mention), I asked was she an Olympian (no), I asked did she make the finals in her event at the US Olympic trial (no). She said her records stood for a long time and such. After some digging I determined that she was the winningest female swimmer in Big East Conference (1979–2013) history (as of 2005) with 5 individual championships and 14 relay championships, plus she was a member of 4 team championships. It does not seem that she was ever Big East female swimmer of the year. In her best year she was the 100 meter backstroke and 200 meter backstroke champion and was on four Big East Champion relay teams. When she was hitting 1:58 in the 200 Natalie Coughlin was doing 1:51s and she does not seem to have made the finals in any NCAA or U.S. Olympic trials event. Is she notable?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- The only thing that matters is whether she has received significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary, reliable sources. This has been the standard for athletes for a long time now. JoelleJay (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- She wouldn't have been notable in any recent version of NCOLLATH. If she never was a national champion, never won a national award, never won a NCAA national event or was never elected to a national hall of fame, then her notability would stand or fall on the GNG. The bar was always set fairly high on college athletes. Ravenswing 11:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- People are notoriously bad judges of their own notability. This is why we do not allow people to create articles on themselves. There is nothing to suggest this person meets any notability standards, but if you can find coverage that is adequate you can create an article, although I would suggest against doing so for a person you personally know, but there is no rule against such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I have started Kelly Hecking. Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- sources from the university someone competed at are not independent. We need indepdent sources on all articles. None of the sources there qualify as such. A university publishing about the success of its own athletes is not a case of indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- O.K. I'll try to dig deeper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: I was able to find this (p2) through a brief Newspapers.com search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- There's also this, this, and this I was able to find. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: I was able to find this (p2) through a brief Newspapers.com search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:08, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Please also note that multiple articles from the same paper only count as one independent source, and local sources are given very little weight for high school athletes. If the only material we can find is announcements that she is going to swim for Notre Dame, then she does not meet our notability guidelines.
- I'm honestly a little concerned that an editor with almost 400,000 edits and autopatrolled status would need this guidance... JoelleJay (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC
- WP:ATHLETE has notability guidelines by sport without giving guidance on swimmers. I have hardly done any WP:SWIMMING work and wanted some guidance on what things to point out. This is a very unusual biographical subject. She has a solid case for being a GOAT for her conference, but was never Swimmer of the Year for the conference, never an All-American and never even her own team captain. I was reminded just to go for WP:GNG, which was also helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- And now I see that not only did you go forward with creating a BLP on a subject you have a COI for, despite editors discouraging this and good indications that she is not notable, you've put it directly into mainspace! JoelleJay (talk) 23:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't interpret any commentary above as saying she is not notable period. It is that based on basic lack of accomplishment she is presumed not notable unless you can achieve WP:GNG. Swimmers basically are either Olympians, All-Americans (1st team, but not honorable mentions) or scrubs to be considered for deletion in general, unless they go on to be a major D1 head coach, in which case they may be able to vie for notability. I am still working toward WP:GNG and have a lot of experienc3e achieving GNG. Feel free to nom at AFD if you think that is appropriate. I will contest a PROD so don't waste your time. As User:Smartyllama has stated, this is not COI. I was invited to a party by a friend of Ms. Hecking. She was there. I was there. We were introduced. I have not accepted any compensation for my efforts and since she is a Golden Domer and I am a Wolverine alum/fan, if anything my interest would be contest her notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- But why start an article in mainspace, where she could and will likely see it, before actually determining that she meets GNG? All this is doing is setting her up for an uncomfortable AfD -- which I do think will be warranted since the sources so far are almost exclusively local reports on her committing to Notre Dame (the majority of local reporting is excluded per YOUNGATH, and even if it were acceptable it's all focused on one achievement, so fails BLP1E). Plenty of athletes have their high school stats mentioned in RS, but the community has repeatedly concluded that going into any detail on such information is not encyclopedic, and if that's the only material that can be independently sourced then a biography is not appropriate.
- Additionally, I think explicitly discussing with her whether she merits an article does enter COI territory, especially since you have an existing mutual personal connection. JoelleJay (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I am being transparent, but in my experience communication with subjects has not impaired my relationship with the furtherance of unbiased knowledge. This is the case here. I have created all kinds of marginally notable articles about athletes. Usually, they are towards the beginning of their career, but not always. Regardless, I am here to be pointed in the direction of the pursuit of notability for this subject. I am working on it and hopefully, heading in the right direction. As for our mutual personal connection she is a classy people person who collects friends of the ilk of Ms. Hecking and Mr. Roberts. I have nothing but the highest regards for her.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't interpret any commentary above as saying she is not notable period. It is that based on basic lack of accomplishment she is presumed not notable unless you can achieve WP:GNG. Swimmers basically are either Olympians, All-Americans (1st team, but not honorable mentions) or scrubs to be considered for deletion in general, unless they go on to be a major D1 head coach, in which case they may be able to vie for notability. I am still working toward WP:GNG and have a lot of experienc3e achieving GNG. Feel free to nom at AFD if you think that is appropriate. I will contest a PROD so don't waste your time. As User:Smartyllama has stated, this is not COI. I was invited to a party by a friend of Ms. Hecking. She was there. I was there. We were introduced. I have not accepted any compensation for my efforts and since she is a Golden Domer and I am a Wolverine alum/fan, if anything my interest would be contest her notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- I hardly think meeting someone once at a party qualifies as a COI. My friend's girlfriend once sat next to Bryce Harper at a bar in DC and briefly struck up a conversation with him. This was two minutes some years ago and she hasn't seem him since except on the baseball field, yet alone spoken with him. Does that forever give her a COI if she edits Wikipedia (which AFAIK she doesn't)? Smartyllama (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- O.K. I'll try to dig deeper.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- P.S. there was a 2nd Golden Domer who I met at the party who I may also create a page for. OLB Ryan Roberts who is a bit miffed to look at Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish_football_statistical_leaders#Sacks and see his name in black.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Every other blue link in there except one(*) is someone who had an NFL career. That should be a pretty good indication that they are NOT notable for their Notre Dame stats but rather for their coverage as pro football players. Did Ryan Roberts ever play for the NFL?
- (*)The one exception is IMO far TOOSOON but nevertheless the subject does have some coverage across multiple years of his COLLEGE career. JoelleJay (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I will take a look at Mr. Roberts in a few weeks after I get through with Hecking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- @TonyTheTiger: On Roberts, I was able to find coverage here (probably SIGCOV) here (maybe SIGCOV?), here (maybe?), here (definitely SIGCOV), here (probably SIGCOV) and here (p2) (SIGCOV). So I'd say he passes GNG, although it is a bit weak. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thx. I'll have a look when I get finished with Hecking.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I can't see source #1, but #2 is local coverage (Courier-Post) on his HS career (excluded by YOUNGATH), #3 is another Courier-Post article on his HS career (fails independent and YOUNGATH), #4 is good college coverage from Al Lesar of the South Bend Tribune except for being exceedingly local, #5 is mostly quoting him and is from the Courier-Post again (fails independent), and #6 is another article by Al Lesar from SBT (fails independent). Certainly more promising than Hecking, but still doesn't meet GNG, and I would argue just isn't particularly encyclopedic per this precedent. JoelleJay (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- O.K. guys. I created a page for Emma Reaney who has 1 national championship and minor Team USA experience. Would she be about the minimum accomplishment to be deemed notable based solely on swimming accomplishment regardless of the press.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure, but I can guarantee you that she passes GNG. For coverage on Reaney, see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (p2) [10] and many other results on proquest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- 1 is college coverage in a local paper (Lawrence Daily Journal World), which holds much less weight than something nonlocal but is still ok; 2 is another article from LDJW by "anonymous" (not an independent source anyway); 3 is another LDJW article (not independent); 4 is literally a press release; 5, from the Indianapolis Star, is probably fine, but still of the "local interest" type so less weight; 6 ditto for the South Bend Tribune article; 7 is definitely local and somewhat routine non-SIGCOV reporting from the Kansas City Star; 8 is another SBT article with pretty good coverage; 9 is more non-SIGCOV from SBT. Overall I think she likely meets GNG, but the encyclopedic value of a standalone article is definitely blunted by the lack of non-local commentary. JoelleJay (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Would she be about the minimum accomplishment to be deemed notable based solely on swimming accomplishment regardless of the press.
Where are you getting the idea that this is a notability criterion?? There is NO automatic notability from any athletic achievement "regardless of the press"; per NSPORT a subject must meet GNG and this must be demonstrated in the article with at least one independent secondary RS containing SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure, but I can guarantee you that she passes GNG. For coverage on Reaney, see [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] (p2) [10] and many other results on proquest. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been trying to get feedback related to this topic in a couple of places (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Medals_sections_of_infoboxes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Swimming#Medals_in_the_infobox) to no avail. Since the topic of this post was notability and one of the quickest ways for a reader to determine notability of a subject is to scan the infobox, maybe I can get some feedback here. The issue is medals in the infobox. I am trying to understand what is Kosher. 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. After seeing Olivia Smoliga's infobox with NCAA championships, I added that content to Emma Reaney's and Randall Cunningham II's infoboxes. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA (LC & SC) 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. Hecking has 3 career 1sts (LC), 4 2nds (SC) and 2 3rds (SC). Is it Kosher to include this in a medals element of an infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)}}
- @Ravenswing: please address the YMCA Nationals as related to your comments regarding your national level accomplishment comments above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Further thoughts are as follows. Since this is not an open national championship (age limited, pre-collegiate limited and YMCA history limited since you have to have swam in 4 prior YMCA events including a (presumably regional) championship), how much does it count. Can I stub out some related competitors who were YMCA Nationals champions. I am thinking about Lisa Dolansky (who otherwise is limited in relevance to Big Ten Swimmer of the Week and Purdue Athlete of the Month significance), Tashy Bohm (High School American record holder, 3-time Big Ten Champion, 3peat 200 y backstroke, and 2-time NCAA All-American honorable mention and Heckings contemporary), and Jennifer Crisman (I think 4-time Big Ten Champion, including 4peat 100 y backstroke, 7-time All-American, Multitime YMCA Nationals record holder, USA National Swim and Water Polo teams and Hecking contemporary).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- I would say not. We are (happily) getting more conservative when it comes to presumptive notability, and I'm thinking less by way of "stubbing out" such competitors as not according them articles in the first place unless they independently satisfy the GNG. Ravenswing 19:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- User:Ravenswing, I have about 4 issues here so I am not sure what "I would say not" means: 1. Is YMCA nationals a form of national level competition like you were referring to above, 2. Should YMCA nationals be presented as a medals element of the infobox, 3. Should I stub out some of the other YMCA nationals champions, 4. Is it appropriate to use medals elements in an infobox to present NCAA championship content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to have nothing to do with notability: please discuss what should go in an infobox in a more appropriate place. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- 3 of the 4 points are directly related to notability. Above User:Ravenswing mentions that national level accomplishments is in some way related to notability. To me YMCA national aquatics competition is on par with AAU Junior Olympics aquatic competition. I am trying to determine 1. if YMCA nationals is something that is relevant to that issue, 2. if the connection is strong enough that it should be in an infobox, 3. If the connection is strong enough to bring encyclopedic merit to other champions, 4. is maybe unrelated to this topic, but not very different from 2.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- This seems to have nothing to do with notability: please discuss what should go in an infobox in a more appropriate place. Spike 'em (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
- Any advice on the propriety of NCAA medals elements in infoboxes will impact many articles that I have primary editorial roles in, including Tora Harris, Thomas Wilcher, Donn Cabral, Matthew Busbee, Marie Roethlisberger and maybe Augie Wolf.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Proposal for association football (soccer)
Hello, everyone. I have noticed some different proposals based on GiantSowman's, RadomCanadian's and Fred Zepelin's proposals, but they could not find a clear consensus on these conflicting proposals based what to include on N:SPORTS and N:FOOTY, but there is still no consensus here. So I have proposed a modified in this place the following regarding significant coverage, and for the sake of general notability guideline:
Proposal
|
---|
Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following: Significant coverage is likely to exist for players if:
Significant coverage is likely to exist for coaches if:
Significant coverage is likely to exist for referees if:
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 leagues listed here. Assistant referees may not counted to meet the criteria unless it satisfies with further proof to meet the W:GNG. Referees 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 where they may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at leagues listed here. |
That would be all for that. I also would recommend that if you can share your thoughts, whether you support, or oppose that proposal to sustain that consensus. I know that I felt like I'm repeating myself once again, but I am open to hear your opinions. If you support or oppose this proposal, let me know here, or if you have a question to add on this proposal, please let me know here, or leave a reply on my talk page for further questions. Thank you all, and have a peaceful day. Cheers. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
proposed leagues that are deemed notable
, linking to WikiProject Football. That link should not be included, as WikiProjects are not permitted to decide policy or guidelines.
- While I generally think participation criteria are a bad idea, they can be useful, but these are too inclusive. In particular, while there might be extensive coverage of La Liga players today, that was not true in 1929; the same is true of other leagues and competitions. Any proposal that includes participation criteria needs to carefully define the data range that the criteria is useful for. BilledMammal (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed, and updated. Ivan Milenin (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- If participation criteria are to be reintroduced despite the RfC, then at least change the wording to something like "recurring participation" or "participated significantly" in order to avoid the old loophole of players becoming "notable" after playing for 5 minutes. The wording doesn't need to be precise (it's SIGCOV that ultimately matters anyway), nor does an arbitrary lower limit of time need to be established, but the technical threshold of one second implied by "have participated" cannot stand. Avilich (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Avilich: Would the words "played in at least one or more matches" be acceptable enough? And if you don't mind, at least for the squads, could I add the following words, "haven be called up and/or listed in the official squad list for the FIFA World Cup, the continental tournaments and continental nations leagues"? Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Avilich: P.S. I have modified the proposal in behalf of your query. Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's better, though 'multiple matches' is simpler. Avilich (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- Fixed, and updated Ivan Milenin (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's better, though 'multiple matches' is simpler. Avilich (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think "one second in two matches" is better than "one second in one match". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:39, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Avilich: P.S. I have modified the proposal in behalf of your query. Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- @Avilich: Would the words "played in at least one or more matches" be acceptable enough? And if you don't mind, at least for the squads, could I add the following words, "haven be called up and/or listed in the official squad list for the FIFA World Cup, the continental tournaments and continental nations leagues"? Ivan Milenin (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Participation criteria were deprecated in the RfC; full stop. Ravenswing 04:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- For reference, there was some discussion of this proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 173 § Notability guideline for association football on Wikipedia:Notablity (sports). isaacl (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- Personally I couldn't support a proposal that is based solely on participation. Also the use of "such as" is not satisfactory. We need precision here. Also I couldn't support the "proposed leagues that are deemed notable." part. We need that list in here and currently that list it too extensive, eg includes all English Football League matches which is also unacceptable to me. Nigej (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- As above, any proposal must be specific in nature (no woolly language) and not defer to a Wikiproject essay. However, I am not averse to the reintroduction of participation criteria where they are shown to be accurate predictions of significant coverage for their entire scope (timeframe is where these things generally fall down); but no evidence has been presented that the proposed criteria meet that requirement, and it's difficult to believe they could given how wide-ranging they are. wjematherplease leave a message... 06:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. I'm not against participation criteria per se. However (as an example) I am unconvinced that a very high proportion of those who played just one match in the English Football League throughout the period from its founding in 1888 to the present day are in fact notable, especially in the lowest tier. Nigej (talk) 07:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- This was already discussed here. I'll note the incomprehensible addition of further leagues; qualifiers, etc... I'll note there may be a case for including participation-based criteria where these rely on merit (such as the major international competitions themselves [not their all-inclusive qualifiers]; or the very top flight of modern football, i.e. the top European leagues which attract most if not all of the world's best players, listed here, on which a previous proposal is based). The expansion suggested here, however, seems unhelpful. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'll also note that "will have significant coverage" is plainly incorrect. Such wording is not used anywhere else. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
- I think we need to replace "multiple" with "at least 3", and I think we should just drop the called up figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@John Pack Lampert: In terms of the match appearances, I will update that, but what is your opinion on why we should drop the call up situation? Ivan Milenin (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- The idea of placing any value above 1 on the number of appearances has been rejected multiple times. It's not OK to just suddenly decide 3 is OK - it's not. There's abolsutely no logic whatsoever for choosing 3 - it's more or less a random integer. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- This needs to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Association football preferably, rather than at 3 separate locations. GiantSnowman 15:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
- For actors we require multiple significant roles in notable productions, so there is strong precedent for requiring more than one appearance to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, but not 3 productions. Or 5. Or 20. It depends, doesn't it? There are very clearly people who played once - or were only in one production - who are obviously the subject of enough coverage to show notability. And those with 20 or 30 appearances/productions who might not be. Anyone who's followed the debate about what the number should be should know that any number other than one can't be specified with any confidence whatsoever. To even suggest it is questionable at least given the history of the conversations that have taken place. In reality, a trivial pass of *any* notability criteria should be questionable at AfD. It certainly seems to be consistently at ones about footballers. Changing the number to 3, 5, 7, 20 or 100 will make no difference whatsoever to that and is totally unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Suggestion: The proposal embraces mere participation as a criteria for dozens of leagues across the globe. The broad scope makes me reluctant to endorse it. A participation criteria would be more likely to receive acceptance if it were limited to the world's most elite leagues, e.g., Premier League (UK), La Liga (Spain), Bundesliga (Germany), Ligue 1 (France), Serie A (Italy). Cbl62 (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be awfully helpful though. Tbh you'd be better off writing "someone who's played professional football might be notable if suitable sources exist". Which they obviously do for so many other leagues. Otherwise it'll only end up with people writing "delete, fails NFOOTY as they didn't play in one of those leagues". Which isn't very helpful either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- The list of leagues is too large - but being as limited as you suggest simply does not reflect the reality of significant coverage that players in may other leagues receive. I am working on a better proposal as we speak. GiantSnowman 20:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
- This low-threshold participation criteria is largely why the previous RfC happened. Rachelle Bukuru played in the 2018 African U-20 Women's World Cup Qualifying Tournament for example, but is currently at AfD due to the abounding lack of SIGCOV in RS. That situation describes probably half of the Burundian footballers. I really don't understand why there is this attempt to essentially undo the RfC. We all know exactly what's going to happen if criteria like this is reintroduced. First, a bunch of database sourced stubs will be created. Queue AfDs in which half of the votes are "Keep because NEWNFOOTY: there is a record of this person once accidentally wandering onto a pitch". The AfDs will close as no consensus. No SIGCOV will be located, and we will be left with a handful of near-perma-stubs. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
- Well that resulted in delete with all 3 editors who contributed to the discussion supporting deletion. In some ways I am surprised we are not seeing more football related deletion discussions, but the fact of the matter is it takes longer to do background to build an AfD nomination than some editors took to create the article in question in the first place, so the speed at which this is happening is probably to be expected. John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- There is nothing in this proposal that would make players at youth tournaments notable (indeed, they weren't even notable under the old guideline) so that article is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- "Won...", not "played in...". Levivich 06:23, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose No one has yet presented any example of why we need such a criteria, instead of just following GNG. I think we would only be helped by this proposal if we could show cases that some actually think are broderline GNG, but a full consideration of the context suggests we should not have an article on that person. Without such cases I see no benefit to such a rule. To explain what I mean, with many unelected political candidates we can find multiple indepdent sources that give indepth coverage, at least if they run for city council in a city with 2 major newspapers, each paper would do a profile on candidates. We have decided that not all city council candidates, and not all nominees for major party for congress, and default notable, so the incidental election coverage is not enough to justify an article. If someone could show how a Football criteria would be doing the same I could see it being justified, but I see nothing that indicates it actual would be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- The reason for having a criteria remains what it always was: a way of quickly judging whether an article is likely to meet the GNG. Personally I'd throw out every single SNG and go with GNG each time, but that's probably a touch impractical and it would probably be better for everyone if there were some workable SNG around. Fwiw I'm not sure there are right now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment How exactly is one supposed to have scored at least one goal in a tournament that they didn't play any matches in? Seems the "scored at least one goal" criteria is unnecessary. Or does "played at least one match" mean played a full match (or at least most of it, such that getting subbed out with two minutes to go is fine but getting subbed in that late isn't)? If the latter, it should be more clear. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's an utter nonsense proposal, because it means goalkeepers would not count! GiantSnowman 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: But surely goalkeepers could have played at least one game in these tournaments/leagues/etc, and they're much less likely than field players to only appear for two minutes, and on the rare occasion it happens, it's much more likely to generate coverage since it's usually so they can come in for a penalty shootout like Australia's goalie last week. So they'd still qualify under the standard I would think. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- then what is the purpose of 'and/or scored one goal'... ;) GiantSnowman 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I was asking! Unless there's some incredibly bizarre play where the player was sitting on the bench and tried to toss the ball to someone after it went out of play but it wound up going in the net and the idiot ref decided to count it as a goal, or some equally contrived situation which has virtually zero chance of ever happening, there is absolutely zero way for someone to score a goal without playing in a game. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Understanding your concerns, it was subsequently amended. Ivan Milenin (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- Nathan Horton did it in hockey. [11] Levivich[block] 05:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not saying it doesn't happen - List of goalscoring goalkeepers - I'm saying it's a silly thing to based presumed notability on. GiantSnowman 06:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
- That's what I was asking! Unless there's some incredibly bizarre play where the player was sitting on the bench and tried to toss the ball to someone after it went out of play but it wound up going in the net and the idiot ref decided to count it as a goal, or some equally contrived situation which has virtually zero chance of ever happening, there is absolutely zero way for someone to score a goal without playing in a game. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- then what is the purpose of 'and/or scored one goal'... ;) GiantSnowman 21:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- @GiantSnowman: But surely goalkeepers could have played at least one game in these tournaments/leagues/etc, and they're much less likely than field players to only appear for two minutes, and on the rare occasion it happens, it's much more likely to generate coverage since it's usually so they can come in for a penalty shootout like Australia's goalie last week. So they'd still qualify under the standard I would think. Smartyllama (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's an utter nonsense proposal, because it means goalkeepers would not count! GiantSnowman 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Changing Orienteering Notability Guidelines
Hello fellow wikipedians! I am new to Notability guidelines, but I have been editing articles related to Orienteering for a while. I would like to suggest several changes to the notability guidelines, as I feel that they are not strict enough and the community is not active enough to follow the guidelines appropriately (see WP: WikiProject Orienteering is inactive, and many of the articles in Orienteering are stubs with very little information on them). I would like to streamline the articles as follows, with major changes in capitals:
Orienteering: NOTABILITY AS OF NOW
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete who competes in the field of orienteering if they meet any of the criteria below
- Have finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
- Have finished top 3 in any other major senior level individual international competition according to the criterion below. Presently that means the three medalists in H21E and D21E in O-Ringen, except for the competitions until 1968, when there were not so many runners.
- Have won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships, in a World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc)
- Have won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships.
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for an orienteering club if it meets any of the criteria below
- Has got a medal in a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla).
- Has won a senior national championship in relay in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships.
- Has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above.
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for an event apart from the championships mentioned above if it meets all the following criteria
- It has an international elite field.
- It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
- It has been held over a period of 25 years.
Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila, and the Jukola relay.
Orienteering: PROPOSED CHANGES
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for an athlete who competes in the field of orienteering if they meet any of the criteria below
- Have finished top 3 in the World Orienteering Championships or the European Orienteering Championships.
- Have finished top 3 in WORLD CUP OR WORLD GAMES (NO OTHER COMPETITIONS INCLUDED, INCLUDING JUNIOR WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS); (I believe this is better as it cuts down on articles such as Silja Tarvonen, Siri Ulvestad, Barbara Bączek, others which have barely been visited or edited for decades and add very little information or value. Also no useful news coverage really exists for any of these athletes with very few exceptions; they have accounts on the International Orienteering Federation page and little else)
- REMOVE COMPLETELY Have won an individual gold medal at the Junior World Orienteering Championships, in a World Ranking Event (Swedish League etc) (those unfamiliar with the sport may not be aware that there are hundreds of such ranking events and very few of them are notable or receive coverage; most Junior World Championship champions do not receive much coverage, and there are many with no articles as we do not have the manpower to produce them)
- REMOVE COMPLETELY Have won a senior national championship in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships. (I do not know a single article for somebody who fulfills this criteria; it seems superfluous. These events do not receive much coverage, and there are dozens of countries championships which fulfill criteria, and many championships within each country!)
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for an orienteering club if it meets any of the criteria below
- Has got a medal in a major relay (according to the criteria below, which mean presently Tiomila (both the Tiomila relay and the women’s relay, since 1970 when the number of team became so large that it could not anymore be organized from point A to point B) and the Jukola relay (both Jukola, from 1972, and Venla). (There are too many clubs that fulfill this criteria! We do not have time to produce that number of articles! I think this is less problematic than the above points, however, as these clubs often receive coverage in Finnish news etc. I would KEEP)
- REMOVE COMPLETELY Has won a senior national championship in relay in a country whose athletes have received a medal in the World Orienteering Championships. (Clearly under the argument for individuals winning the national championship this is just too broad. Has anyone here heard of Octavian Droobers?)
- Has been represented by ten runners who fulfill the criteria above. (I would keep this; this may be a valid notability guideline, as I do not think there are many clubs that pass it. Likely to overlap significantly with winning Jukola Relay)
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for an event apart from the championships mentioned above if it meets all the following criteria
- It has an international elite field.
- It regularly has more than 5,000 competitors.
- It has been held over a period of 25 years.
Presently that means O-Ringen, Tiomila, and the Jukola relay. (Keep this. Only three pages! That is manageable.) (ADD TO THIS SECTION: Junior World Orienteering Championships, World University Orienteering Championships, European Youth Orienteering Championships. Worth keeping these articles, and as they no longer appear in above notability they must be moved to this section).
Conclusion
Please let me know what you think and how to go ahead with this. How do I notify the community and can I simply make the changes directly? What are your opinions on the changes? Just trying to make my community better and give more time to articles that are of high importance in orienteering. Cheers. Spiralwidget (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Edits made
I have gone ahead with the edits after 10 days with no comment. Please give me feedback if you wish. Spiralwidget (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section
An RfC is pending at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RfC: Change to Sports Personalities section. Cbl62 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Where is NBAD?
There was a five point section for badminton here but it is removed now. Why? zoglophie 21:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
As @Dlthewave: removed it here can they explain it a bit? zoglophie 21:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- A larger number of guidelines were removed based on an RfC to deprecate appearance-based criteria. However a number of the NBAD ones in the edit you mentioned were achievement-based, which I thought were still ok. Spike 'em (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Spike'em, the RfC was WP:NSPORTS2022. I went ahead and restored the three of the achievement-based criteria and I'd be glad to discuss the others if there are any concerns. Keep in mind that the SNG is still based on "SIGCOV is likely to exist", which means that simply meeting NBAD is not sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree with the current WP:NBAD. I think point 3 should be removed. For point one and two, I think gold medalists is sufficient as you are likely to have coverage based on winning a tournament. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, Spike'em, the RfC was WP:NSPORTS2022. I went ahead and restored the three of the achievement-based criteria and I'd be glad to discuss the others if there are any concerns. Keep in mind that the SNG is still based on "SIGCOV is likely to exist", which means that simply meeting NBAD is not sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)