Jump to content

Portal talk:Current events/Sports/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Team order

How's the order? Home team last? Winning team first? What? --Howard the Duck 04:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought it was winning team first here. Jmlk17 04:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Some European competitions have different arrangements. I myself use the winning team first convention. --Howard the Duck 05:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Split the page!

When's someone going to move the March 2008 stuff into the archive?? — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I would've done it if I know how to. Who usually does that anyway? --Howard the Duck 04:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Blackhole77 talk | contrib 00:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Time for a split...

Split time... — Dale Arnett (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Winning team first

Does anyone want to follow that convention? Why are European competitions seem to be excluded from this rule? --Howard the Duck 03:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

European style is to always put the home team first. That's just how they do it. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
So if someone writes about a North American sport, the home team should be last too? This sorta like the WP:ENGVAR but the "winning team first" convention has always been applied to American sports here. --Howard the Duck 06:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
As per the thread above, I always have used winner first, and that seems to be the norm here. Jmlk17 07:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't we have a unified convention? Like winning team comes first no matter what place on Earth they're playing? Except of course for draws. --Howard the Duck 09:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why we need one, to be honest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
There's been a de facto consensus that scores of North American sports are to be reported winner first, which is the standard in U.S. and Canadian sports media. Otherwise, it's home team first. — Dale Arnett (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As a rule of thumb, I say that it depends on the location of the sport being played. If the game (match, etc.) is played in North America (such as baseball, American football as examples,) the winning team is always listed first. In football (soccer), the home team gets first listing. NoseNuggets (talk) 3;10 AM US EDT Oct 8 2008.

Layout and XHTML validation

Hullo. The use of {{Current events box}} inside a table made Opera (but not IE7 or Firefox) add 250 pixels of whitespace between the text and the tables (actually, I have no idea why it did this!), so I removed the wrapper table. The infobox class is aligned to the right by default anyway, and all the boxes stack up nicely in the browsers I've been able to test it on (the ones mentioned above, all on Windows). Please report any problems this might create in other browsers, but it really shouldn't.

Another layout question. This portal, as well as many of the other CE portals, has an empty div element above each date heading. Is that actually used for anything? If not, they should be removed, and if they are needed, their id attributes should be changed to something valid, i.e. something beginning with a letter. -- Jao (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Turns out the divs are used for linking from the calendar from Template:Current events box, so I'm raising the validation issue at the template's talk page. -- Jao (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

covering the Beijing Olympics on the Main Page

Hello, a group of regulars at Template:In the news, is currently being extraordinarily forward thinking and discussing how to handle coverage of the Beijing Olympics results on the Main Page. Consensus seems to be coalescing around the idea of linking to a separate page for Olympics coverage. We'd be interested to hear if you guys already have something planned that we can integrate in, or if you'd be interested in helping maintain the proposed page. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Sports on ITN#Olympics and other multiple-sport events and we welcome your participation. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea about highlighting the Olympics on Template:In the news on the Main Page has been proposed at Template talk:In the news#Proposal: Olympics feature during the Beijing Olympics. - BanyanTree 23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Team order again

I have reverted an edit to Saturdays' Euro 2008 results which swapped the order of the teams to put the winning team first, on the grounds that the competition is being played on neutral grounds and there's no home and away team (except for Austria and Switzerland, naturally). The order in which teams are reported is determined by UEFA as a result of the competition draw, and Wikipedia should not set itself up as somehow "knowing better" than everybody else. See here for a match report in a British newspaper, here for a German one, here for a Dutch one, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian. Point made? -- Arwel (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anticipating

I had a huge block of football results just now because there were no results. It was taking up a big block of space without saying anything. Don't put results in until you have the scores, otherwise it becomes a free for all of empty results without saying anything. --Falcadore (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. Perhaps if there's something special to say about a match in advance it can be said, but otherwise the main area should be for stuff that has already happened. -- Jao (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Strongly disagree. The edit that was done removed a number of final scores from Euro2008 matches, and it has been the practice for a considerable number of years here to list all of a days matches which are going to be recorded, so that scores can easily be included when the games finish, as they often do, at different times in different timezones. -- Arwel (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I did not remove any games, just placed them behind a <--> making them invisible. There is a column at right for forthcoming events called "Ongoing sports events" and "Upcoming events" sepcifically for events that have not been completed. If uncompleted games are going in the centre section then the point of the column at right is bordering on moot. If this is practice for a 'considerable number of years' then perhaps the question should be asked for the sake of clearing up the contradiction, or at the very least, an annotation explaining the practice, as Wikipedia is not a 'clique' where anything is to be assumed. Wikipedia is not just for regular contributors, but for the world at large.
Speaking personally it does look nonsensical listing events then having no scores in them, is it is not explained why there are no scores. Wikipedia should not have 'in-jokes' as it where that might need to be explained to someone who is not aware of the meaning of the blank scores.
If I am to be shouted down in this, by all means go ahead. --Falcadore (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Removed or made invisible, the point remains that the scores of a number of completed matches ceased to be visible. "Ongoing sports events" is usually taken as meaning events which continue over more than one day, rather than a single match in progress. As to the meaning of matches with no score shown, I would have thought it would be obvious that it means that a match is scheduled for the current day but has not yet been completed. It has been practice since at least 2004 to add the scores of matches as they complete e.g. in World Cup qualification matches or UEFA competitions, where games finish from early afternoon Moscow time to late evening Spanish time. -- Arwel (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Since 2004 means something could be fixed has formed a habit. If every sport did what you suggest then the actual scores would be so far down the page that the point of the page would be lost. --Falcadore (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK - this is why anticipating - doubling up the Ongoing sports events column, is not a good idea. It is now Tuesday and Sunday's Golf and Tennis events have not been filled out. You are encouraging edittors to load the list up with events that are not documented. The policy should be completed results only, becuase with the best intentions in the world edittors are going to get busy or disinterested and this page should refelect events that actually occured rather than events that are scheduled to occur. --Falcadore (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
IMO, the main reason for "anticipated results" is to help the editors of this article. An editor may not be available to insert the scores immediately after an event is finished, and because concluded events are quickly deleted from the "ongoing event" section (and so they should be, because a concluded event is no longer "ongoing"), an important event may be overlooked. Just for example: Today when I logged onto this page for the first time I immediately noticed that the late baseball playoff result was missing. It took me just a few seconds to fill it, using the link in the entry for this event. If not for this "anticipated result", I may have not noticed this result is missing, or it would take me much longer to write the full entry, and I was very short on time at that moment. It was late night time in USA, so presumably the American editors wouldn't put the score until the next morning if I didn't. This is a "current event" page, and quick update is very important. The practice of "anticipated results" is particularly helpful on weekends when many sport events are concluded, or on busy international football days with dozens of matches at different times. I suggest that in case an event remains score-less 24 hours after it was concluded, it should be deleted from the article (it may be better just to make it invisible, in order to make it easier to re-instate it later).--Nitsansh (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Software shortcut proposal

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Software_shortcut_for_college_football_and_basketball_teams for my proposed solution to time-consuming college football entries. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Baseball and football

I've renewed the practice of listing playoff-race baseball scores in the waning days of the season. As far as football goes, I started with top 10 scores for college, but we can expand this once conference play begins in earnest. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I recall from previous season, the criteria for inclusion of scores in college football were:
  1. Games involving top-10 ranked teams
  2. Games between 2 top-25 ranked teams
  3. Upsets in games of top-25 ranked teams (IE ranked team losing to unranked team)
  4. Conference finals
  5. Bowl games
  6. Other games considered very important (for example: Army vs Navy)

So, that excludes "regular" matches between 2 unranked teams, or wins for teams ranked 11-25 over unranked teams. Yesterday, one editor entered the score of Central Florida vs Troy (if I recall correctly) and it was later deleted for being non-notable, even though it was broadcasted live on ESPN international...--Nitsansh (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to suggest that if it is the only game(s) played that night, mostly because college football games are now played every night of the week as the baseball season is now winding down, that the scores be posted regardless. For example, ESPN does a weekly Thursday night game, but along with ESPN2, the networks mentioned occasionally telecasts games Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays with the occasional Sunday night game thrown in as well. And BTW, Nitsansh, we here in the colonies refer to them as "games", not "matches". This isn't association football, you know. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:47 AM US EDT Oct 22 2008.
I disagree with this completely. A game does not become notable because it happens in the absence of other notable games. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and we don't have to report things just to report them. If nothing important is happening in sports, then we can wait until something important does happen. Tomdobb (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chess

The World Chess Championship 2008 starts in a week. Should it be included here? Chess is sometimes considered a sport (by the IOC for instance) but often not... -- Jao (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see previous chess competitions listed here (such as the Women's World Chess Championship 2008 concluded last month), but I have no objection for this event being listed.
If you check the categories system in wikipedia, you'll find that chess is considered a sport (for example: Category:2008 in chess is a sub-category of Category:2008 in sports), so I don't think that's an issue here...
BTW: You don't need permision to edit this or any other article. This is free encyclopedia, isn't it? If someone else thinks your edit is wrong, he/she will undo your edit...--Nitsansh (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know about the WP:BRD cycle, but I wanted to get some opinions on this first. Anyway, good points about the categories. I'll add the match to the upcoming events section. -- Jao (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I would appriciate that if you insert an upcoming event on this article, you would take responsibility to report results once they are available. Don't expect someone else to do it, the regular editors are busy enough with other stuff. IMO, entries should be short and informative only. What I mean is the result of a match, plus the result in the series. As is the costume for events other than domestic north American sports, the home team is listed first, so I suggest "home" in chess is the player with white pieces, who has the advantage of making the first move. But if you think another format is better, go ahead and do it... --Nitsansh (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
No, White first is the convention, no need to do it otherwise. And I'll add the results when they come in, don't worry about that. -- Jao (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
So I imagine the format should be something like this: {match n}: {player A} def/lost/drew {player B}. {player A/B lead series X:Y}. However, for people not familiar with chess scores convention I think it should be mentiones who played white or black. How about this: {game n}: {player A (W/B)} def/drew {player B (B/W}?? --Nitsansh (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW... more contributions are wellcome as well... but note that the main criteria for inclusion of sport events on this article is notability, or importance. Domestic (national) events are normally not wellcome, with the notable exception of USA, due to the fact that it's by far the largest English-speaking nation, and its major sports are followed by the media worldwide. But whatever you think is suitable for this page, go ahead and edit... As long as it's done in good intention and not considered malicious, any contribution is wellcome on Wikipedia... --Nitsansh (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Mere curiosity: isn't India the largest English-speaking nation ? SyG (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
How about this? (Example from the 1972 match)
Game 13: (W) Boris Spassky Soviet Union 0–1 United States Bobby Fischer (B), Fischer leads match 8–5 -- Jao (talk) 06:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think results of 0-1 or 0.5-0.5 is a good idea... I would favour win, lose or draw... if you mention the colours (B/W) than IMO the order could be reveresed... that means: Fischer (B) def Spaski (W)... but I'm not sure a casual reader would understand the B/W initials... unless that's against the rules of chess, I would favour the term "series" for the entire contest, because using the word "match" in this context could be confusing... in most sports "match" refers to a single contest... but it's only my opinion, and it's no better than someone else's...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Then what about that ?
Game 13, Soviet Union Boris Spassky (White) loses United States Bobby Fischer (Black), Fischer leads 8–5
SyG (talk) 18:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Since you make a link to "White and Black in chess", then the initials W/B can be used. As far as I know, correct English dictate that the word "lose" should be followed by "to"... so I would favour: Game 13: Soviet Union Boris Spassky (W) loses to United States Bobby Fischer (B), or United States Bobby Fischer (B) def Soviet Union Boris Spassky (W). Fischer leads 8–5
Once again I say... I have no authority here and my view is just as good as yours... there's no "correct" or "incorrect" format which everyone should follow... definitely in this case which seems that never appeared on this page...--Nitsansh (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

NFL summaries

OK, I started the practice of writing one-sentence summaries for NFL games, but I'm thinking that it's no longer appropriate. Now that there's so much material on this page every month, including text for every NFL game seems excessive. I suggest we include only scores for regular-season NFL games unless something unusual or notable happens. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The summaries have gotten out of control and are increasingly full of unsourced opinion and tabloid style writing. Tomdobb (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Who put the records into the teams scores? I don't like it, and they will be deleted. As for the one-sentance recaps, they really aren't tabloid but do describe the games in a nutshell. NoseNuggets (talk) 7:11 PM US EDT Oct 19 2008.
Do you really think referring to teams as "Big Red" or the "Phightin' Phils" is encyclopedic? Or descriptions such as "After inexcusably allowing a late second quarter drive to end with a blocked field goal return for a touchdown", "Getting a measure of revenge for three straight losses" and "the feisty NFC South" aren't at best tabloid newspaper style writing or at worst an injection of unsourced opinion into the recap? Tomdobb (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Tomdobb, "Phightin' Phillies" (refering to the Philadelphia Phillies) and "Big Red" (often referred as per the Arizona Cardinals) are listed in their pages as recognized nicknames. The descriptions (as per the fifth Wikipedia pillar, to "be bold") fit the pillar philosophy, and if you don't like the "yellow journalism" descriptions, tough nuts. NoseNuggets (talk) 3:52 AM US EDT Oct 22 2008.
Tough nuts? Maybe you should review WP:CIVIL. Those may be recognized nicknames but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be used in these descriptions. And bold or not, WP should never be a place for unsourced POV or "yellow journalism." Tomdobb (talk) 12:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
They're just like "Red Devils" or "The Toon", I wouldn't object the use of their nicknames especially if the description is getting monotonous (like: "Cardinals win after a touchdown on their home field", why not "Cardinals win after a touch down on the Big Red's home field.")
I agree the summaries should be ditched, unless the regular season game is of utmost importance or if something really remarkable happened on that game. Playoff games should have summaries, though. –Howard the Duck 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Redesign

Check it out at User:Howard the Duck/Current sports events. –Howard the Duck 04:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can the flags (except for national teams) at the sidebar be ditched? Also remove the schedules for club competition unless the stages reach the semifinals? It so long and disorienting, especially if you consider that there also flags at the main text. –Howard the Duck 17:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be good, in my opinion. I also would like some streamlining when it comes to linking, especially in the sidebar. Linking the dates is not very useful (as autoformatting is now deprecated anyway), and I think removing some of the other links would make the relevant ones stand out much better, per the spirit of WP:CONTEXT. So that
would become
I think it looks much better this way. It's unlikely that someone sees this entry and suddenly feels an urge to read about Germany anyway, and if someone would want to, it's linked from the competition article. By the way, this sub-CE's bringing in line with the others is long overdue, so thanks for making this effort. I remember thinking about doing it myself at one point, but it seemed pretty complicated. -- Jao (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I dunno about delinking dates since users prefer their dates a certain way, but other links may go, except for the stadium/arena of the event. The rest can go. Or instead of Oct 23, why not 9/23? I think that can be delinked. –Howard the Duck 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
While 9/23 works, 9/5 would cause problems because it means 9 May in most of the world but September 5 in a few places, most importantly in the US. As for user preference, that is now a deprecated feature, see Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers)#Date autoformatting. -- Jao (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
So "Oct 23" can be a good compromise? As long as the date formats won't vary I'll be OK with it. –Howard the Duck 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, let's just choose the US format (Oct 23) or the other one (23 Oct) and use it throughout this page. As for which one that should be, I couldn't care less. -- Jao (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the "Month date" convention. –Howard the Duck 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that links for dates are not necessary (that would also save editors of ongoing/upcoming events lot of routine work...). The 3-letters month format is fine with me. The link for the venue is often displayed as the place name (IE [[venue|place]]), so that actually saves space. (Look at entries of upcoming rugby matches for example)--Nitsansh (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, does anyone like to revert the one section per day convention? I liked it better that way, currently a day has sections divided into the different sports. –Howard the Duck 18:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I take the blame for that change, and it has 2 important advantages:
  1. It enables to edit seperate sports, which makes it much easier on busy days with multiple sports (particularly Sundays), and on the ongoing/upcoming events.
  2. It reduces one star on each line, because the sport no longer needs a star, the competition reduced from 2 stars to 1, the match from 3 to 2, and so on... it also saves some space and reduce the need for entries flapping over seceral lines (especially important on the side bar)--Nitsansh (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, does anyone think we should really cut down game summaries except for:
  • Games that affect division/league/conference championships
  • Games that affect wildcard/other playoff berths
  • Games that affect elimination/relegation of teams from contention
  • aka early season games aren't included unless something "spectacular" happens such as:
–Howard the Duck 12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose a new format for the soccer/association football group staes of continental confederations (UEFA, AFC, etc.). Here is how it should look:

  • UEFA Champions League, Group Stage Matchday 1
    • Group A:
      • Europe Team A 0-0 Team B Europe
      • Europe Team C 0-1 Team D Europe
    • Group B:
      • Europe Team E 2-0 Team F Europe
      • Europe Team G 1-1 Team H Europe

Et al.

The same can be used in the sidebar without the scores listed, of course, as seen in this example:

  • UEFA Europa League, Group Stage Matchday 2
    • 22 Oct
      • Group A:
        • Europe Team I - Team J Europe
        • Europe Team K - Team L Europe
      • Group B:
        • Europe Team O - Team N Europe
        • Europe Team P - Team M Europe

Et al.
Criticisms and comments, please. NoseNuggets (talk) 8:52 AM US EST Nov 6 2008

I prefer the current Team A Europe - Europe Team B since the icons are closer together and aren't that distracting.
As for the sidebar, I favor ditching schedules altogether except when the tourney reaches the semifinals, or in national team tourneys since the national team templates automatically attaches a flag to the text. –Howard the Duck 14:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Well...a compromise is needed on that per se. Your current but with only one link per day as follows:
Et Al.
As you can see, instead of listing the two group games seperately, they would be listed in a group, clearing up a messy format. Hopefully, this will make things better looking. NoseNuggets (talk) 8:03 PM US EST Nov 6 2008.
I didn't see the grouping per group on my earlier post but upon seeing it I like it. –Howard the Duck 01:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Another: When the flags are along with the text (see see relevant MOS guideline) such as this (I was the one who added this):

Philippines Manny Pacquiao wins with a ninth round TKO of United States Oscar De La Hoya as "The Golden Boy" refuses to answer the bell after the eighth round.

They should either be enclosed in parenthesis or ditch the flag altogether and use the country's TLA in smaller font, enclosed in parenthesis and linked to that country's article, such as:

Manny Pacquiao (Philippines) wins with a ninth round TKO of Oscar De La Hoya (United States) as "The Golden Boy" refuses to answer the bell after the eighth round.

or

Manny Pacquiao (PHI) wins with a ninth round TKO of Oscar De La Hoya (USA) as "The Golden Boy" refuses to answer the bell after the eighth round.

I think the TLA convention looks neater but it may be harder to encode. I'd ask the flag templates WikiProject if they can devise a template for this. Excluded are flags placed beside the scores (see examples above) or in racing blurbs that use the icons {{(1)}}, {{(2)}} and {{(3)}} but I'd rather see them listed vertically than horizontally. –Howard the Duck 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It would take lot of work, unless a template is devised to transform the 3-letters code into a full country name without a flag, but currently the template {{PHI}} creates the country name AND a flag, like this:  Philippines--Nitsansh (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Some Olympic flag templates add the TLA w/ link enclosed in a parenthesis already so if they could isolate the code and remove the flag it'll be easy. Or if the flag is necessary for it to work then it'll be hard, but I think they can use the system used in some icon templates. –Howard the Duck 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We need a new template for this, because none of the existing templates is suitable. We got {{flagicon|NOC}}, {{flagathlete|name|NOC}}, {{flag|NOC}}, {{NOC}} etc.... It should be similar to {{flagathlete|name|NOC}} (example:  Oscar de la Hoya (USA)) but without the flag.--Nitsansh (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Does anyone else oppose or have any more ideas? I would want this to be adopted for January 2008. –Howard the Duck 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't you mean January 2009? What I would like to see is a seperate Portal:Current Events/North American Sports which would be limited to baseball, American college and pro football, NBA, WNBA, NHL, MLS/CONFACAC, NASCAR, IRL, NHRA, et al, and the current Portal:Current Events/Sports be renamed Portal:Current Events/International Sport Some North American Sports (Super Bowl, NBA Finals, World Baseball Classic) with an global feel would be placed on the International Sport page when needed. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:40 AM US EST Dec 12 2009
Oops, sorry. January 2009. I don't think we'd need to split it into North America and rest of the world since there are no problems with the way this portal is run. Plus there'll be ambiguous events and we'll just be having 2 redundant portals. We're just due for an upgrade as the main current events portal got an upgrade too. –Howard the Duck 05:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
PS: I also think new portals would have be suggested on some other place. A simple spin-off would not be appropriate. Not sure, though. –Howard the Duck 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It's not part of the Department of Redundant Redundancy Department as Stuart Scott would say. Seperating the CE/Sports portal into a North American and international section would actually streamline the process of where events would go (NFL regular season in the North America portal, UEFA Champions and Europa Leagues into the International portal for example) and only a handful of events such as tennis and golf grand slams, the upcoming World Baseball Classic and Super Bowl XLIII would be on both, as they have international appeal. We really should examine this at all. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:03 AM US EST Dec 12 2008
For consistency with naming conventions, the proposed sub-portal should be named Portal: Current events/Sports/North America--Nitsansh (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Spliting this portal, and I'm not sure if this proposal is the best way to do that, is really necessary... the pages in recent month become too big: October and November exceeded 100KB, and we have yet to reach the middle of December and the page is almost 90KB...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's allready 93KB... by this rate it would get to 240KB by the end of the month...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
That's because we list regular season for two leagues: NFL and the Euroleague. In fact we list all games for both leagues so... –Howard the Duck 01:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
We also list all games for World Cup Qualifying, Champions League and UEFA Cup... do you suggest to get rid of these too? BTW, NFL regular season ends this month, and European football goes to winter vacation until late February, so the next two months will be somewhat shorter... but OTOH tennis and golf tours return to full action in January, it's busy time in rugby, and all the winter sports are in full motion...--Nitsansh (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
See my first batches of proposals above. I do think all games in finals tournaments between national teams should be added, though. –Howard the Duck 02:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think to trim the page down, we should trim the fat. I think we should restrict ourselves to truly international competitions (as long as they are fairly short - so no UEFA Champions League prior to the knockout phase), or domestic playoff series of all major sports (again, as long as it's short, so we shouldn't list the results of every first-round Stanley Cup playoff game - just only the deciding games). So no NFL regular season (starting next season), or college football "BCS Top 25" games, as they are not international series. I think we should also remove "qualifiers" (such as World Cup qualifying) as well. Also, the sidebar should not contain every single game of some international tournament. kelvSYC (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Objection. NFL and BCS Top 25 games are played on a weekly basis, while other sports such as baseball, basketball and ice hocley are played on a almost daily basis. The same goes for NASCAR's Sprint Cup, where the season stretches from late winter into mid-to-late fall before Thanksgiving. However, the new "North American Sports" portal that I propose, those sports will get coverage on a regular basis. And we will report on weekly events in Golf as well with the PGA Tour, the Champions Tour and the LPGA Tour within said portal as those tours are largely North American based. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:21 US EST Dec 15 2008
Nope on restricting this place on "purely" international competition. I like the current setup, without the weekly NFL games (even games that have no real bearing) and/or BCS top 25 games (I'd restrict myself to the "Top 8" or the conference championship games for BCS conferences (or how many number of teams that are participating in BCS bowls) games. If this were the case, the Super Bowl game won't get in, while the super duper exciting football game between San Marino and Andorra would.
Also, I think it was also proposed some years ago to not add NBA and NHL first round games except for the series-clinching game. Like, WTF is with that? You add every NFL regular season game and you prohibit NBA and NHL first round playoff games? –Howard the Duck 13:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In actuality, it was the first two rounds of the NBA and NHL Playoffs unless a team was eliminated that were not covered. Again, baseball, professional basketball and ice hockey are played on a daily or near daily basis, while American football (AP/BCS Top 25, NFL) and soccer are played on a weekly (or bi-weekly) basis, while college hoops are twice, sometimes thrice weekly, especially around March with the tournaments. I was surprised that the first two rounds of the NCAA Basketball Tournaments last March were not included (unless there was a shocking 14 seed-over-3 seed upset). When that tournament starts in March 2009, I'd like to see those rounds restored in full. NoseNuggets (talk) 4:01 AM US EST Ded 23 2008.
Doesn't matter on the quantity of the games, what matters is the quality of the games. Playoff games are more important than regular season games. All of the games of Detroit Lions got in, and six of the playoff games of the Atlanta Hawks won't? Madness. –Howard the Duck 12:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, it's not quantity over quality, it's just how the seasons are set up. American football is a weekly sport, and other sports are on a daily (or two to three times a week) basis. NoseNuggets (talk) 8:28 AM US EST Dec 30 2008
Again, that is not a logical answer on why 16 regular season games of the Detroit Lions got in, and 6 of the 7 Atlanta Hawks playoff games won't. –Howard the Duck 16:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to extend the discussion here so everyone gets a fair chance to put some input into the discussion onto this topic. NoseNuggets (talk) 12:15 AM US EST Dec 15 2008

Having lived in Europe and the USA, I can attest that NFL games carry about as much social impact on the North American continent as international country soccer games (say, World Cup qualifiers) have in Europe. Because of the huge import of NFL and big-time college football, and the small number of games played, I recommend keeping weekly scores. I have nothing against adding first-round NBA and NHL playoff scores. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I still find it silly that all Euroleague regular season games got in, while only Christmas Day games and the homestretch of the NBA regular season (plus the occasional brawl) games would be listed.
BUT, it is often said the main news the NBA regular season aren't the games themselves but what happens outside the court, like signings, trades, suspensions, etc. –Howard the Duck 12:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Mwalcoff, there is too much space taken up with "Winter Sports" results as it is, and in the world (save for FIBA World Championships and Olympics), basketball is a winter sport. As for the first two rounds of NBA and NHL, I say we still only report elimination games when they happen in those rounds. The opening rounds are not as important as Conference and NBA/Stanley Cup Finals, and interest piques in those series. I mean, would I get thrilled about say, the #5 Denver Nuggets against the #4 Golden State Warriors in a first round Game 3, or would I get excited over Game One of a Los Angeles Lakers-San Antonio Spurs Western Conference Final? Or would you get thrilled over a second round Washington Capitals-Montréal Canadiens first game, or a Eastern Conference Final Game One between the New Jersey Devils and the Carolina Hurricanes? I rest my case. Again, quality over quanity I say. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:32 AM US EST Jan 11 2009.
Winter sports, as defined by IOC, are sports played on snow or ice, which are included in the Winter Olympics. Actually, ice hockey should have been among winter sports, but I decided to leave it as it is because of its importance. Basketball is by no means a winter sport, and it is played year-round. Naturally, at this time of year the various winter sports are in full action, while many of the summer sports are in off-season. On the issue of early play-off rounds in NBA/NHL, I have no trouble with reports on every play off game, and also reports whenever a team clinches a play-off berth.--Nitsansh (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I for one, am not thrilled by 16 of the Detroit Lions games this year, or the Dolphins' games last year, or the Raiders for the past several years, yet they are continued to be listed, despite little international interest (at least on the regular season). I'd say the first two rounds of the NBA and NHL playoffs have more international interest than NFL regular season games. –Howard the Duck 11:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying that NFL games have more quality than NBA games? I don't quite get it.
If that's the case, you should also support the first proposal in cutting down unneeded blurbs here, such as group stage games. What is more exciting, Week 1 of a Eagles-Cowboys game or the NFC Championship between the same two teams? Manchester United vs. Real Madrid in the group stage or Manchester United vs. Real Madrid in the UEFA CL final? Roger Federer trashing some lucky loser or Federer vs. Nadal in the final? American Idol audition rounds or the finale? –Howard the Duck 07:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Which sports and tournaments are you talking about?--Nitsansh (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm talking about league competitions where the season has a regular season and a postseason. For "pure" league competitions such as the Premier League, I guess the final weeks of the season (final 5-8 rounds or so) may be appropriate if anyone is willing to update them. –Howard the Duck 01:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
PS: With Nuggets saying we should post items if it is "exciting," how about the NBA All-Star Game? That game counts for nothing, unlike the Major League Baseeball All-Star Game where the game counts for something. –Howard the Duck 01:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Excitement is a very personal thing. This evening our TV sport news showed a 25-meters buzzer-beater basket scored in a highschool game and filmed on home video camera. I guess that might qualify as "exciting", but does it have any real importance? Certainly not.
Definitely, the shorter the league or series is, each game has more importance, and that should be taken in consideration. Even though every game in a league system technically counts the same, games which decide the championship, or qualifying to the play-off, or relegation on the other hand, have more importance not because of the games themselves, but because of their implications... but you can't report on the implication alone without the game that caused it, do you?
Now... when judging inportance of sport events, there are some elements that should be taken in consideration... the importance of the sport, which I think should be judged from a global prespective, the importance of the competition in general, and the importance of a specific event within that competition... If you take the case of American football and other American team sports, football scores higher grades on all 3 elements... (though you can argue that basketball has more importance as a sport in global perspective)--Nitsansh (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As a general rule, as you've said, games in pure league competitions in theory count the same, but as the season winds down, the games bring in more importance. Even Alex Ferguson told the press that the last games of the season should be treated as "cup finals".
As much as possible, I would like to avoid the "global importance" debate, I'd rather limit it to "importance in sporting world", or "importance in the sport per se," since after all this is "Portal:Current events/Sports" so we can have as much leeway as possible when the events themselves are important.
I think what you said on "the shorter the league or series is, each game has more importance" is true. That's why I won't really remove the NFL regular season scores unilaterally since after all, there are only 16 games per team. Same for the first two rounds of the NBA playoffs, there are a total of 14 games max per team, so to omit 12 of the possible 14 games which are in theory more important than those 16 games which are always added is bit baffling. –Howard the Duck 05:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In general, I'm on your side on this issue... I would tend NOT to remove entries for non-notability unless there is a consensus on that... which means in case that no consensus is reached, and there are substantial arguements for inclusion, I go for the "yeah" side... but I try not to make conclusions from one sport or competition to another and judge each case on its own. If it was my decision, I would not report on most college football games, mainly because from my point of view it's not such an important sport... but it's not something I would go to war for...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
BTW... I didn't see anyone suggesting that early play off games in MLB are not important... does it make a big difference that baseball has just 3 play-off phases against 4 in basketball and ice hockey? If importance of the sports is an issue, I would certainly put basketball above baseball, and ice hockey at least on the same level...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Generally, ice hockey, basketball and baseball are about level in importance; aaide from the U.S., ice hockey is big in the northern countries and Switzerland, baseball in East Asia, and basketball in the Philippines, so they're about level. If we're talking about English-speaking countries I'd say basketball is more predominant, but that's just me.
As for baseball, it has been established the longest so I don't see NoseNuggets removing that, since it is baseball. In the States, baseball and football must be level in popularity, NFL only has bigger numbers since their playoffs are single-elimination tournaments while baseball's are in a best-of-5/7 series so fans may not be compelled to attend the early games (see Nuggets' argument above) especially if their team is really not that established (like the D-Backs, but the Red Sox routinely sell out Fenway, but it's small anyway). –Howard the Duck 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. Basketball is by far more popular worldwide than both ice hockey and baseball. It is popular in most of Europe (UK is a notable exception), in South America (Brazil and Argentina in particular), in Australia, and in China. Meanwhile, ice hockey and baseball have significant popularity in no more than a dozen countries. In the US, the popularity of profesional basketball and baseball are on about the same level, with hockey far behind. Check the rating figures. And also college basketball is by far more popular than college baseball and hockey.--Nitsansh (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I dunno but for some reason, NFL and MLB are grouped together, while NBA and NHL are grouped into their own. Nevertheless, I think it has been established that basketball may have semblance of importance so the results of the first 2 rounds of the NBA Playoffs can be added w/o threat of removal. I'd argue the same for hockey, though. –Howard the Duck 05:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I allready said... I am in favour of reporting 'all playoff games, and also whenever a team clinches a playoff berth, division or conference title, etc... everything that is deemed important for profesional baseball is good for basketball and hockey as well... but that requires an editor that will take responsibility for this on a daily basis for about 3 months from April to June... are you ready for this?

BTW... just today, thanks to a casual editor, I learned about the sport of Bandy... Isn't the mission of Wikipedia to expand the human knowledge?--Nitsansh (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

I guess we could end this discussion with the retention of status quo except for:

  • NBA and NHL playoff games would not be removed once added.
  • Flag icons will be displayed in the "England England - Scotland Scotland" convention

–Howard the Duck 12:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone does not agree on the conclusions of the discussion, I'll be removing the notice from the portal page by the weekend. –Howard the Duck 06:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I would question letting NFL and college American football get full seasons (seems very American centrist {{Globalize}} anyone?) while probably the biggest domestic sport leagues in the world (Premier League, La Liga and Serie A) are left out. Here's some stats, for about 35 weeks the leagues play, each have 380 games, that divides down to 10.857 games per week, while the NFL has 15.058 games per week (17 weeks 256 games). All four leagues are the highest domestic leagues available. One argument supposedly is "the regular season is more important because the season is short", well I call that and raise with teams going to a playoff with as many wins as losses (or even more losses) with a change to get the national title... While in one of the big 3 leagues if you'd lose that much, you'll probably get relegated. That's why I'd say if NFL and college American football (amateur league?!) get full season coverage, surely the big three football leagues should have as well. ch10 · 00:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I used the to add European football national leagues (not just the big three) when their seasons are winding down. As for the NFL season, I'd also have the same standards -- when their regular season is about to wind up, then that's the only time we'd add them, plus all of the playoffs games.
As for NCAA Div. I FBS, it's not really the whole season, just the top 25. I'd say reduce them to the top 8 (the number of teams playing in BCS bowls).
Actually, if you'll look at the bigger picture, it just balances out; the NBA, the top basketball league in the world, a maximum of like 20 regular season games are included (opening weekend, Christmas, playoff-clinching games, etc.) + the earlier custom not to list the first round playoff games (WTF?), while the Euroleague gets all (regular season, Top 16, QF, Final Four) games. –Howard the Duck 05:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
For for example, one could argue, that the Premier League has already winded down, in that Man U have probably clinched it. And let's say they're out of range when it comes to add the games, the important games are already missed. On the Euroleague vs. the NBA it would surely be the same reason why all uefa champions league games be added, it's a continental competition, which might have a higher priority even if it's standing in the world is lower. Like I'm all for having all these CONCACAF, AFC, CAF, OFC champions leagues with all matches, even if they're much "lower" in quality to not be to US/EU/SA centred... If there a list or similar to which events are currently included? Just brainstorming... If it's about not the Sports portal to be filled with too much, what about creating something like this (Still having this Sports portal with the most important games, playoffs, big upsets in regular season etc)
Though this might be too much to do, just a thought to cover as much sport as possible, but not filling up the front page too much. If it's not hard matches could be sorted like lets say AfD's or stuff where let's say last night game of the Premier League would be at Portal:Current events/Sports/Football (soccer)/UEFA/England/Premier League/2008–09/Round 27/ but being able to use through transclusion to take out one single game, one of the days the round was played on or all of the round. If this is making scene. ch10 · 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, FIBA considers the NBA as an "intercontinental" league, so if the UEFA CL has a North American basketball counterpart, it would've been the NBA. I think the National Basketball League (Australia) is also considered to be the Oceanian intercontinental club league but I gotta check that.
As for your proposal, interestingly that has what NoseNuggets proposed earlier although it only provided a split from North American sport and rest-of-the-world. I'll think this will make the coding (and editing) this page very hard for newbs, and this will page will be awash with unneeded stuff like all of the Detroit Lions games. I'd still prefer a more limited but still global perspective we are having right now. Also, most of North American sport except for the NFL doesn't really have "rounds" in the sense that the teams play once a week, most of the time, NBA and NHL teams play 4 times a week (for a total of 82 games/season) while MLB teams play as much as 7 times a week (and even twice a day for total of 160+ games per season) so just imagine 82 pages of NBA "rounds", and I'd actually prefer them to be divided into days since the teams play an uneven number of games for much of the season. –Howard the Duck 06:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Well Intercontinental perhaps in that it spans 2 countries? But I accept that the USA and Canadian sport system is different, so it's hard to compare. But I would still consider all the pro leagues only at the same level as the domestic leagues in other countries, they're not open to everyone on the continent for example. But back to the proposal
Yes that would be a problem, for the MLB for example But for MLB etc, there could perhaps be divided into weeks/months... or perhaps if it wouldn't be too much, format it so all the games in a season are listed on ".../MLB/2009" in date order sections of months or perhaps weeks. But so you'll be able to extract games or multiple games at once with parameters like {{ ... | date = 2009-05-05 | match = team1-team2 }}, and if you want all the matches from that day you dont specify the match. But again, most of the scores not to be included on the front portal. ch10 · 07:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the "domestic league" as defined by Europeans applies to North American sports especially to basketball and ice hockey since both the NBA and the NHL are the top leagues in both sports. I dunno how the IIHF classifies the NHL vis-a-vis other hockey leagues but I think it's the same with the FIBA counterpart. I don't think Canada has a separate basketball league, and the NBA along with the other North American leagues north of the Rio Grande are based on a franchise system with no promotion/relegation so it's quite hard to compare the two. As I've said we'd have to use the FIBA or any other sporting body's way of determining things. The NFL is special since only Americans play them.
Also, I think the same is true for Australia -- they work on a franchise system and not on promotion/relegation.
As for the proposal reading how it will be implemented makes me dizzy I dunno how other people can edit it or even go through the appropriate pages to edit them. –Howard the Duck 07:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Having lived both in Europe and in North America, I can attest that the NFL is not really comparable to domestic European soccer competitions. In fact, the only thing in Europe that would really compare to NFL games in terms of the attention they generate among the local populace would be games between national teams, such as World Cup qualifiers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
People who are interested in sports and football follow one or multiple leagues every week, when it comes to attendances many millions go and watch it live every week there are leagues played... So that ONLY matches between national teams would bring the same attention as NFL games is wrong. chandler · 22:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Let me explain what I mean. In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, just about everyone watches the Steelers games, even people who aren't hard-core sports fans. This article says a recent Steelers-Browns game got a TV ratings share of 66 in the Pittsburgh area, which is just off the charts. (For comparison, American Idol averages about a 22 share nationally.) When I lived near Pittsburgh, the owner of the local Sears store said he was thinking about closing on the day of the Browns-Steelers game, because he couldn't get anyone to come into work. Of course, there are some holdouts who hate football and don't watch the games, but they can't help but be aware of them. On Mondays, the game is the lead story on the front page -- not the sports page -- of the newspaper. The game is the default topic of conversation at offices and schools on Monday morning. The same kind of thing happens in other NFL markets or in places associated with a major college team.
I lived in Prague for two years and can tell you that the only sporting events that had an impact similar to that of an NFL game were matches of the national soccer or ice hockey team. Sure, some people support Slavia or Sparta or whoever, but you could easily hang out in Prague with Czech people for a week and have no idea that those club teams were playing. The same could be said of my British friends. Arsenal supporters support Arsenal, Tottenham supporters support Tottenham, but I've been in London when they played each other and was surprised to see what a non-event it was for the general population unlike, say, the Ohio State-Michigan game in Columbus, which is bigger than Christmas. The only sporting events in England that have a cultural impact as deep as NFL or NCAA football games in America are national-team games, whether it be a World Cup soccer qualifier or the Rugby World Cup final.
This is probably due to the density of professional teams in Europe. London has what, about 10 professional soccer teams? So no team is going to have a hold on the entire population the way the Steelers have a hold on Western Pennsylvania or the Ohio State Buckeyes on central Ohio. Each NFL team represents an area of about 10 million people, which is the size of a typical European country. So NFL teams, and in some areas college teams, play the role that national teams do in Europe, uniting millions of people behind a team that represents them. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I've advocated the Team A United Nations 1-2 United Nations Team B convention; I even proposed a flagless flag template still using the TLAs but nobody seemed to care, and proposed listing race winners vertically (see my 11 December 2008 edit) to make it less of an eyesore but nobody seemed to care... –Howard the Duck 11:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In progress updates

Recently, there have been updates to scores while games are in progress. Is this/should this be a standard practice? Or should this be discouraged? It seems like it would lead to a lot of unnecessary edits and could quickly spiral out of control. Tomdobb (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think "In progress" refers to games that are currently ongoing after the last edit. For example, 5 games are scheduled, 4 are done after the last edit but the last game is on its way, they'll just add "in progress" to denote the game is ongoing and it's not canceled or something. I don't think anyone has point-by-point updates in this page. –Howard the Duck 15:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I get that, but there have been a few half time updates and the like. I don't necessarily have a problem with. I was just curious what the general consensus is. Tomdobb (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I have no problems with halftime updates as long as they are not play-by-play updates (especially in basketball) like what happened to the 2008 NBA Playoffs article last year. Soccer and hockey goal-by-goal updates are a bit OK for me too since the goals are few. –Howard the Duck 02:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing events -- NBA & NHL playoffs

Why not instead of:

We use:

–Howard the Duck 15:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Month Grid

Has anyone in recent times checked the Month Calendar at the top right of the page and noticed it does not work as a shortcut to each day because of an errant comma? The day by day are titled 'April 18, 2009', but in the month grid has it 'April 18 2009', so as a result the link does not seem to work.

Needs a fix I think. --Falcadore (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events/Sports/Archive_1&oldid=1167198643"