Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian sport

WikiProject Canadian sport

Navigation (edit · changes)

Main project page
Tools
- Structure
- Templates
- Discussion
- Assessment (stats, list, log, requests)
- All related pages
Participants
Featured and good articles
Relations
Tasks
- To do

Archives

Sport in Canada

I propose we use Sport in Canada as our portal page. I suggest that we develop the entire page as much as possible, categorized into sections, and then once a section is complete (or close to it) we determine if we want to split it off into a separate article. I believe that we will end up with several sections like this such as Professional sports in Canada, Canada at international multi-sport competitions etc. HalifaxRage (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Projects

A lot of work here would fall under various wikiProjects such as WP:Olympics; it would be great if some of those members would help us out here; likewise any work we do on related pages would help their project. Notably there is a lot of work need on pages related to the Paralympics. HalifaxRage (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

I have outlined a suggested structure of th eproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Canadian_sport#Scope. My suggestion is we work on each high level page to bring it to the point where it can be used as a portal for its subject. As time and manpower permits, each sub-category could then get formatted to fit this structure, for example common "see also" tags could be added as well as categories. I think we'd get soem traction with other projects (see above) if we can cross-tag articles, for example as we work on everything under Baseball in Canada we can tage them all with WP:Baseball such that those pages can be brought to their attention. There are lots of hardworking editors out ther eon other projects who can help us out. HalifaxRage (talk) 17:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved this to Structure for simplicity. I'd love to see this fille dout as completely as possible for the first few levels at least. This would let us quickly see where we need to focus editing. HalifaxRage (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Women's soccer in Quebec

Hey everyone, I wish to work on the pages on the women's soccer. I begin with the page of Laval Comets and Quebec City Amiral SC. I have to end these 2 pages. And I have to modify the page of Amy Walsh a great local player of soccer whom I like very much. It was not easy for me because I am new member on Wikipedia. I wish to continue at the level of the other women's teams of Quebec ( Carabins, Rouge et or, Vert et Or) and maybe also of Canada.

You can read 3 pages and say to me if everything is correct Merci beaucoup --Charlesquebec (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

new page for Maroua Chebbi --Charlesquebec (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Women's Hockey

Hello I made some updated by pages Montreal Stars and Canadian Women's Hockey League Only verify if everything is correct because I am new member on wikipedia . Tanks --Charlesquebec (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Canucks (WHL)

Is the Vancouver Canucks (WHL) the predecessor of the Vancouver Canucks (NHL) ? the WHL team stopped playing in 1970, when the NHL team was formed. There are comments at the WHL team talk page that indicates that it switched over/rebuilt, with some people remaining in place as transition. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

youth sports in canada

After looking at the 2011 Canada Games, I found articles 1988 Junior Olympics and 2011 International Children's Winter Games. These seem to need some work.

Does anyone know about the 1988 event? 64.229.101.183 (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHL Winter Classic → NHL outdoor games

Proposed merge

It is suggested that this article Winter Stadium (Montreal) be merged into CEPSUM Stadium . It is my feeling: I know very well the CEPSUM and the campus of Université de Montréal. The Winter Stadium (Montreal) probably does not merit his own article, and such content as is appropriate should probably be merged into the CEPSUM Stadium article. I invite discussion, --Charlesquebec (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Women leagues in United States and Canada

Template:Major Leagues

Addition of 3 most important and professionnal for women:

Other women leagues are less important and the status of the women players is amateur for the American and Canadian sports federations. --Charlesquebec (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One person ( Oknazevad ) remove Canadian Women Hockey League. I invite discussion for addition of the Canadian Women's Hockey League (CWHL) in the template Major League. The CWHL is the major women's ice hockey league in Canada. I invite discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Thanks --Charlesquebec (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wouldn't put any of those, as they generally aren't considered major leagues in the sense that this template is trying to convey. They get relatively no coverage in media. Especially the hockey one. I think this template is trying to indicate the leagues with are called teh 4 major leagues. In fact I would probably remove all of the others other than the four. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who cast the template into it's current form. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the top-level leagues in various sports in the US and Canada. It is intended as a navigational aid linking the "big 4" professional team sports leagues, a well-established concept in US (and Canadian ) sports. However, the template was expanded to include additional leagues that are sometimes considered the "fifth major league", that is ones that are sometimes included as a major, or looked at as being the next breakthrough.

That's why MLS and the CFL are included. The former is widely understood as the fifth major in the US (with increasing acceptance as such), while the CFL is the top gridiron football league in Canada, and the second most popular sport there according to surveys.

A quick look at the other included articles leads me to definitively take out the CWHL, which is so far from being noticed at a level anywhere near the big 4 it doesn't belong. The WNBA does get fairly substantial coverage, so it's the women's league most akin to the "big 4". I would say WPS is also questionable; there's very little coverage outside the specialty sources. The lacrosse leagues' players have day jobs during the week, so I'm not even sure they are fully professional, and are little noted by the mainstream press. And the Arena Football League, was at one point "the next big thing", with major national coverage, but it's collapse and reorganization (which has lead to far smaller attendences and player salaries) has dropped the leagues prominence tremendously. I could see removing any of them. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Gentleman, cross off any mention of the major women leagues in North America. The professional licenses of the women players still exist for Hockey Canada and for Canada Soccer Asssociation /and for the US soccer but not for some wikipedians here. The professional sport is also only man's world. All my congratulations Gentlemans. --Geneviève (talk) 15:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it may say more about the sporting culture than we'd like, but the fact is, Women's sports leagues are far less prominent in the US and Canada than the men's leagues. That's all that this navbox is covering: the most prominent leagues. oknazevad (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that women's hockey isn't important. Its just that the topic of this template is the major sports leagues. Neither of the 3 leagues are considered the major leagues. Whether or not that is a good thing isn't the issue, its reality. -DJSasso (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also another reality: I think that there are two or three people monitoring some related sport pages and working together to coordinate their actions and make go away any change on what they do not like. Now, how to change the male culture in Wikipedia ? Sadly, I have no idea --Charlesquebec (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to assume good faith, maybe? You're the one who posted the same comment on three different talk pages, so don't be surprised when the same response appears in multiple places. oknazevad (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion: Québec Capitales → Les Capitales de Québec

Readers of this page may be interested in contributing to the discussion at Talk:Québec Capitales#Requested move. Cheers. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sport or sports

When it comes to the use of "sports" or "sport", does Canada tend to follow American or British English conventions (see American and British English differences#Word derivation and compounds)? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In most contexts, such as the example presented in that article, we would follow the American convention. I read the sports section in my newspaper. Reso lute 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your response. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages

Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect Canadian related project talk pages.Moxy (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years in Canadian states

Re the years by Canadian state/territory, it is simple enough to use the standard “years in” template to simplify navigating beteween years, see Category:2008 in Newfoundland and Labrador as against Category:2008 in Manitoba. Hugo999 (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to participants at this page about adminship

Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Icon change

It is proposed (here) that the portal icon for Portal:Sport in Canada, and for Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian sport, be changed to File:Flag shirt of Canada.png. Is everyone okay with this? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves the Olympics

Hello! The Winter Olympic Games 2018 started today and we have organized a wiki contest to improve the articles related with the Winter Olympic and the Paralympic Games. This is a multilingual project and is on Meta. You can participate till March 25. The link to the meta page is m:Wiki Loves the Olympics 2018. And don't forget that like Coubertin said "The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win, but to take part". Thanks. --Millars (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two month virtual editathon on Women in Sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to write more articles about Canadian sportswomen who lag far behind men on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages

Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal to redirect all Canadian project related talk pages...--Moxy 🍁 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Cup

FYI, wikt:en:Stanley Cup has been nominated for deletion -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rosenke

Is this person notable? If you propose or nominate it for deletion please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Jordan Eberle

Jordan Eberle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Rowing Club

Recent edits at Ottawa Rowing Club appear to have added an WP:UNDUE list of non-notable members of this club. There is a discussion at Talk:Ottawa Rowing Club. The input of others familiar with Canadian sports articles would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal on mass draftifiying Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]