Talk:June 2008 in sports

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)

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)

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)