User talk:Conyo14/Sports rivalries

Essay feedback

@Conyo14: I find the essay very interesting, and I respect and admire the work you put into it. There are some parts I agree with and some I don't. My main qualm is that I don't think the "nutshell" statement at the top is optimal because in my view it's ambiguous in that it may encourage AfD participants to simply fetch more WP:ROUTINE sports coverage, and then when those sources are added it becomes even harder for the community to notice any GNG-worthy sources. It's not uncommon for a sports AfD article to have 50-100 sources, and there may be five hidden in there that truly count towards notability but nobody would know that unless they sift through them, which for some people takes more time and effort than they are willing to give. In those AfDs, I often see folks !voting knee-jerk delete based on their personal opinions of the topic or what they see from the vast majority of the sources. From my experience, it tends to be easier to show notability and persuade the community to keep the article if the emphasis is on a few top-quality sources in terms of notability-compliance rather than sheer quantity, and I believe the "nutshell" statement should bear similar emphasis. Left guide (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

What often happens is that an editor knows the teams' history, so they just go find individual sources on specific games or playoff series to fill in what they think is the rivalry. That's WP:OR. What's missing are sources that take a higher level look at the series and show how the rivalry started or progressed. The reality is that the media today will label it a "rivalry", so at a minimum I expect sources to mention the term. But that's usually easy to find. The harder requirement is to have mmltiple sources with significant coverage on multi-year spans of the rivalry. Otherwise, editors just find articles on isolated fights or beef, routine coverage of a few playoff series, and then they pass it off as a "rivalry".—Bagumba (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Yes, that's precisely the logic behind the WT:NSPORT proposal, to draw a clearer line in the sand for notability. Left guide (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Local

Not sure if the link to Wikipedia:Places of local interest (WP:LOCAL) is applicable. Is that referring to local newspapers (WP:AUD)? Or is it implying that only one city cares about the rivalry? —Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It's a bit of both. One-sided rivalries exist, thus, they shouldn't necessarily have an article. Conyo14 (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

But then only one city would be reporting it, and it likely wouldn't get the required multiple sources. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Hence, why I put it there. Conyo14 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My point is that a local source seems fine, and doesn't need to be called out. Ultimately, multiple sources will not be met merely by a couple of local papers. —Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reality check

I created Lakers–Clippers rivalry in 2012. I'd like to think I wasn't WP:ORing a rivalry at that point. Whatever we come up with here, it'd be a good checkpoint to see how realistic our expectations are by comparing it to the LAL–LAC page on its first day. Would it survive an AfD? If not, are our standards too high, or was the page premature? —Bagumba (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd say it would. There are a few sources from the first version that show significant coverage of a rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 16:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I haven't bothered to examine all of the article's 100+ references, but from a cursory Google search I'm in between doubtful and unclear. What do you think are the WP:THREE best sources? WP:RECENTISM seems to have come up in some of those rivalry AfDs, and within it is the 10-year test. The way I interpret it, one good benchmark for judging notability would be whether or not there are reliable sources that discuss events 10+ years after they occurred. Left guide (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't gone back and looked at those sources either LOL. That's why I was suggesting we use a test case or two as a reality check, to see if we are being realistic with "known" rivalries.—Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a 10 yr test (an essay). Existing event guideline WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE says:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

—Bagumba (talk) 12:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Well that guideline quote explains most of the content in these rivalry articles. I think it's good to have these discussions to hopefully improve quality control in a manner that mirrors consensus of the wider encyclopedia. Left guide (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba:. I semi-agree with your point on event guidelines. However, I also feel that a rivalry's mention in the media only comes before, during, or after a game. The significant coverage of the rivalry is what truly matters, not necessarily the event that happened. A fight between two players in a rivalry likely will not receive coverage after a week. It's why I might be struggling at Heat–Pacers rivalry. Conyo14 (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:AUD

The reference to WP:AUD does not belong. WP:AUD is part of WP:CORP which states on its face: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of . . . sports teams." Cbl62 (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

And I don't think local sources need to be called out explicitly. See #Local (above). —Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62:, @Bagumba:, I think I was mostly going for how a source may not be neutral, perhaps loitering on a one-sided rivalry. Although this wouldn't count against GNG, it wouldn't be the wisest to consider if the references were all from news outlet or conglomerate of sources. Take the local media of the Dallas Cowboys, or the New York Yankees, or the Toronto Maple Leafs and consider the bias those local newspapers may have for their team. Regardless, I really appreciate your thoughts on this. It is my first essay here on Wiki, and I look forward to getting more detailed on it. Conyo14 (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a complex topic. Thanks for taking the initiative. IMO, starting an essay and having it evolve is often more productive than trying to dive straight into a guideline. This is in your userspace, which is fine. Did you want to keep this more your own, or are you open to us directly editing it? Either way is ok, anyone can start their own essay too. —Bagumba (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I mean if you have something specific that I haven't covered (or may be misinterpreting), go for it. The bolded statement I would still want untouched. It's unique and I think covers what this essay truly entails. Conyo14 (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, remember that NPOV doesn't mean the individual sources themselves necessarily need to be neutral. Per the WP:YESPOV policy:

As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view; rather, it means including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Given that WP:GNG WP:AUD has no application to sports teams, that reference should be removed from the proposed essay to avoid creating confusion. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think you meant WP:GNG. Conyo14 (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Correct. Fixed it. Cbl62 (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)