Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13

"Equestrian" at the Summary Olympics

Would anybody object if I did a quick run through the above series of templates and pages to do a fair few pages moves? [Adjective] at the Summer Olympics is just bad English... See also the CfD for the categories. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you give an example of such a page move? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I see the OP has moved Equestrian at the Summer Olympics to Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics without discussion (which is rarely a sensible thing to do), and I assume they want to do the same for all the other pages like Equestrian at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like it would make more sense to call it "Equestrian events at..."; colloquially (and somewhat anecdotally) I don't think I've ever heard it called anything other than "equestrian". Primefac (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
These would not be uncontroversial moves so discussion is needed. There are far better options than your proposal, e.g. "Equestrian sports at...". The issue also goes beyond the Olympics, to include most (if not all) other "equestrian at multi-sport event" articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI, an RM has been started at Talk:Equestrian at the Summer Olympics. Please feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The RM has been procedurally closed; the Rfc below replaces it. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: "Equestrian" article titles and categories: bulk move request

What should the naming scheme for equestrian events[a] be altered to? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Current options

As discussed in the main section and other locations, there are four primary naming options proposed:

  1. "Equestrian at..." (i.e. status quo)
  2. "Equestrian events at..."
  3. "Equestrian sports at..."
  4. "Equestrianism at..."

Survey

  • Oppose "Equestrianism" as this does not appear to used in reliable sources at all. Support either "Equestrian" (i.e. no change) or "Equestrian events" (which seem to be about equally used) or "Equestrian sports" which is used but less commonly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    • For clarity, "Equestrian at..." (no change) is my first preference, following by "Equestrian events at..." in second and "Equestrian sports" in third place. I oppose "Equestrianism at". Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for Equestrian... per WP:OFFICIALNAME (Olympic website) and about equal usage with "Equestrian events" per WP:COMMONNAME (G-News hits). Weak Support for Equestrian events... as it is used and is technically better grammar (though I'm not sure anyone is actually getting confused). Oppose Equestrianism as it seems to be rarely used in reference to the sport itself (G-News) and not used officially anywhere. Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) – I came into this with the presumption that I would want it moved to something, based on the same grammar objections listed in the #Discussion, as this usage of the term looks awkward to me, but maybe that's just because I'm not a fan of, er, um, [grits teeth] "equestrian". My personal preference is for equestrian events, and some preliminary searches turn up a slight preference for that, but it appears to be within the margin of error. I'm willing to change my WP:!vote if a convincing argument is put forth for one of the alternatives based on the data, but given the rough equivalence of the alternatives, I don't see sufficient evidence for doing so now, so I vote for no move. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian events at or equestrian sports at, for clarity. Some mostly insider sources sometimes use equestrian as a noun, for shorthand to other insiders, but it would be yet another WP:Specialized-style fallacy to impose that on the encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for Equestrian events at... or Equestrian sports at.... (to match with Category:Equestrian sports competitions), with preference for the second option (to match the categories and also since these are indeed "sports" so "events" seems a bit vague) - as I originally said, the current format is just bad English. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Either Equestrian at or Equestrian Sports/events at... Not sure there is anything wrong with the current wording, but I don't like to proposed Equestrianarism Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Lee Vilenski: What is wrong with "Equestrian at the Summer Olympics" is the same thing that would be wrong with "Exceptional at the Summer Olympics" (i.e. you can't have an adjective without a noun which it modifies - so while you could have, to continue the example, "Exceptional weather events at the Summer Olympics", the other option is obviously bad English). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    The problem with that argument is that "equestrian" is a noun (as well as an adjective). When it used as a noun, as in "equestrian at the Olympics" it is perfectly grammatical. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Equestrian can be a noun in some specific meanings ("a rider or performer on horseback"), but that's clearly not the meaning which is employed here (otherwise it would be talking about the people who competed in equestrian events/sports, and it would still be an error as it should be plural, i.e. "Equestrians at the [x]"). This is surely not the only example of a word that can be both a noun or an adjective (the other that immediately comes to mind is "fair" - with radically unrelated meanings; or "pale" and "The Pale". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what your point is, because usage in reliable sources clearly shows that the sport is often known as "Equestrian". Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Which sources? Please do show. Additionally, I'll note that the top category is Category:Equestrian sports (i.e. not "Equestrian") and that the main article of that category, although broader than sports, is Equestrianism (not "Equestrian"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    From the first page of a google search for "Equestrian at the" -Wikipedia: Radio Times, IOC, Equestrian Australia, NBC, The Guardian, ESPN. I stopped looking at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    And advancing to the last page of results shows that there are about 120 results for that query, but due to the query wording, there are false positives such as "And who's the one general who competed as an equestrian at the Olympics?", "Equestrian at the Box", "A 411 on all things equestrian at the Pan Am Games.", "She has also represented Intermont Equestrian at the Zone 4 Championships", etc. Comparing with the last page of "Equestrian events at the -wikipedia" shows 137 results with fewer or no false positives, so there appears to be a slight preference for the latter, but I haven't compared the reliability of the sources in each result set. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolute no for "Equestrianism." I've never heard that term used when I've been around Dressage and 3-day Eventing. Best to leave it as is or at worst use "Equestrian events." Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Preference for Equestrian sports at... or Equestrian events at..., but no change also seems fine. Oppose "Equestrianism at...", for obvious reasons. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian sports per base category, as well as the fact that the definition of "equestrian" as a noun refers to tbe rider and not the sport according to Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins,Dictionary.com... These are the first hits I get on Google, not intentionally selected to say what I want. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian events or equestrian sports seem best options to me. Equestrianism isn't used in any sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian at, because that seems to be the most common way to put it, and is more concise than "equestrian events/sports" which resembles hypercorrection, i.e. an attempt to "rectify" the adjective-as-a-noun back to the adjective (possibly, just a thought). However, I can support even the latter. I strongly oppose only "equestrianism". twsabin 21:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian at, per several above, but weak support #2 and weak oppose #3 - I state this only in case #1 ends up ruled out, to say they are my preferences to #4, which I firm oppose (i.e. don't really take this as a support for #2). But I will explain my lack of preference for #3, it is simple and obvious: "equestrian" is the sport, the different aspects of it are events. It would be like calling the different aspects of the cycling "sports" or the different aspects of athletics "sports" (when we have already chosen to make it clear that "athletics" is the sport.) Kingsif (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Kingsif makes a good point. If we are OK with "Athletics at..." (a nouned adjective via usage), then why would be opposed to "equestrian"? Yosemiter (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Can I also offer weak support for another option, Riding at, based on the standard at the Modern pentathlon article, where the former cross-country equestrian event and the current show-jumping equestrian event are both listed under "Riding". Kingsif (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Except that "swimming", "athletic", etc... are actually nouns according to existing sources [and Wikipedia is supposed to follow such usage] (Good dictionaries - [1][2][3] - all have something like "Swimming - the act, art, or sport of one that swims"); whereas equestrian in this context cannot be a noun unless one decides to treat it as some form of neologism ([4][5][6] - all basically give a single noun meaning which can be summarised as "a rider on horseback" - nothing to the with the sports, although you need an equestrian to ride an equine if you want to take part in equestrian sports), since it clearly is not referring to that. Other works of an encyclopedic nature, ex. [7]; use "Equestrian sports". Even specialist sources like US Equestrian Federation use "Equestrian sports" when referring to the topic in running text. It makes little sense to impose a form which is grammatically wrong. "Equestrian" in this context is an adjective ("of, relating to, or featuring horseback riding"), and adjectives without a noun to modify are lonely, to say the least. You can't have "Great in Rome", although you can have "Great historical monuments in Rome". Similarly one shouldn't have "Equestrian at the Olympics"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • You, and I assume whomever else complains, is treating this like we (Wikipedia) are/get to come up with/decide the name of the sport as we use it. But we do not. We have a standard format and put the name of the sport, as decided by the appropriate sporting authorities, in that format. The Olympics just call it "Equestrian" ([8], [9]), or "Riding" in the context of Modern pentathlon. Just because the proper noun isn't also a common noun in this case, doesn't matter in the slightest. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • It isn't a neologism. There are registers. "Equestrian" used like this is tied to a certain register, that of sports, and one could say a subset of sports, perhaps we could see this as the "Olympics register". Not everyone is interested in this topic and won't know it's terminology like not everyone is interested in car repair. Hearing a word from a register you're not accustomed to, does not make that word a neologism. twsabin 11:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • First choice is no change to current system, second choice is "Equestrian events at"... Reliable sources seem to use either "Equestrian" as a noun or "Equestrian events" and we should follow suit. --Jayron32 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

  • There was a vote based on an WP:OFFICIALNAME exception, however I don't see one listed in the specific-topic naming conventions such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Olympics), so I don't think WP:OFFICIALNAME applies in this case. Or is there one I'm missing? Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Mathglot: I was referencing OFFICIALNAME secondary to COMMONNAME as there did not appear to be a distinct common usage between "equestrian" and "equestrian events" when independent media was covering the events themselves. In cases where there is no clear common name, other determinations may be used to form a consensus as stated in WP:COMMONNAME: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Proposing using an OFFICIALNAME is a valid alternative as long as it is one of the common names. The Olympics calls the events as simply "Equestrian" as in their events recaps here and here (using statements like "equestrian competition", "successful equestrian Olympic campaign", "equestrian's top five moments"; the last clearly using equestrian as a noun). Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Yosemiter: (edit conflict) thanks for your comment. I ended up agreeing with your conclusion, although not quite with how you arrived at it; but this may be a distinction without a difference. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • User:RandomCanadian and User:Lee Vilenski: it was not entirely clear whether your unbolded comments at the top of this #Discussion section were intended as !votes or not—it kind of looks like they were. Because there were bolded comments in the Discussion section that clearly were votes, I subsequently created a #Survey section (as is usual in Rfc's that have separate Discussion sections) and moved those two votes there (and added my own). If your comments at the top of this section are your "WP:!votes", could you please repeat your vote in the #Survey section above? If they were just discussion comments, no action needs to be taken. This is so that the closer will be clear on what everyone's intention is here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    Fixed that for you. I don't like the strict separation (and sometimes even rigidity of thought) the two section format usually entails, but if it's bene forced on the discussion, might as well make sure it makes sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: because of the wording of the Rfc, I interpret some of the support and oppose votes as being in favor of the same outcome. Please take care when interpreting them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    We edit-conflicted (I think) but I added some options so that future !votes may be slightly more clear. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note that I have added a #Current options section above the main survey, mainly to indicate the front-runners of the options and hopefully make it easier for uninvolved participants responding to the RFC to "get" what is being proposed. If other options become heavily favoured, please feel free to amend the list. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kind-of as a response to what Yosemiter jumped off from my !vote, I think any change in the style would be wrong, just as a deviation from the naming standards. To wit, nobody would argue for "Swimming events at" over just "Swimming at", and, while it may be awkward, "Equestrian" is the sport... we should be naming the sport (e.g. "Swimming at"), not describing the method of the events it encompasses (e.g. a comparative "Swimming pool events at"), per the naming standards of all the other articles. While you could say that, okay, "Swimming events" means "events within the sport of Swimming", this RfC has suggested "Equestrian events" not as a kind of disambiguation (though what "Equestrian at [Sports Event]" would otherwise mean I don't know) but as a grammatical alternative, i.e. not "events within the sport of Equestrian", but "events that are undertaken on horseback". And that, I think, would perhaps create more confusion, if readers are going through all the sport articles (perhaps for their country), wondering why sentence-style has only been used for one sport. There's also an argument that, if choosing to describe, it would suggest the scope is broader, i.e. modern pentathlon is not an event in the sport of Equestrian, but it is an equestrian sport with an equestrian event. Kingsif (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes and refs

  1. ^ This would include all pages with titles of the same form as Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, a scheme not limited to Olympics themselves; as well as the whole of the category tree, starting with Category:Equestrian at multi-sport events

Alpine Skiing World Cup race podiums

Mikaela Shiffrin
Sport
CountryUSA
SportAlpine skiing
Medal record
World Cup race podiums
Event 1st 2nd 3rd
Slalom 47 11 8
Giant slalom 14 7 9
Super-G 4 1 3
Downhill 2 1 2
Combined 1 0 0
Parallel 5 1 1
Total 73 21 23

At the end of each ski world cup competition, the first three athletes are awarded. Ok, no medals are awarded, but the placements in the top three are considered podiums in careers. Ok the "medal count" template speaks of "medals" and in the World Cup medals are not awarded to the first three as in the Olympics or the World Cup, but the count of podiums in the world cup would be useful information, as it is in other Wikipedia like the German one. Do not tell me that the infobox already contains the information of podiums and victories, because it does not contain the details. So I ask what harm it would be to put this additional information in the infobox since it is almost never in the body of the athletes article? --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cologne Centurions (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 March 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cologne Centurions (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

MLB's postseason first round

I think it's time to have two articles. One called (now historic) Major League Baseball Wild Card Game & the other (currently a re-direct to the former) Major League Baseball Wild Card Series. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Logo size additions, changes & failure to communicate

I'm a tad concerned with @BouwMaster: & his apparent refusal to communicate, concerning his logo size changes to sports team articles. Indeed, he seems to have a history of not communicating, period. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This sounds more like an issue for WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It was just posted there a couple of weeks ago. There was no administrator action taken despite a lot of people being convinced there's some sort of socking shenanigans going on with other users (like Markuss86). Really needs to be an WP:SPI filing, I think. Frankly, between them (and I am assuming it is one person, because of the behavioral evidence) undoing their own edits repeatedly, the absolute lack of communication, and the obvious sock puppetry, I'm concerned that this is some sort of malicious actor using pointless edits to somehow legitimize internet skulduggery in ways I don't understand but am very wary of. oknazevad (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
He started it up again, today. Under another 'name'. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Would need to go back to ANI and/or SPI. Not communicating might be suitable for CIR, but not much we should do on a WikiProject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ranking changes in template

Hello everyone! I've recently started updating squash-related Top 10 world ranking templates, and was wondering if there's a standard way of showing ranking changes? The PSA World Tour rankings has this information (e.g. player X moved up 2 spots) so it's easy to find, but I'm not sure if there's some standard images or code to use for this? Tried searching the archives, but didn't find anything so I thought I'd ask here. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found several solutions described in the documentation for {{steady}}, which also links to further templates if one also needs to show a value next to the icon. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Major League Baseball has been nominated for a community 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. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

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) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sports film" classification

Hey all, I've opened a discussion over at [[10]] about classifying films as "sports film" for the list. So far it seems to be somewhat up the editor at the time. Does the Sports WikiProject have any sort of standardisation for this sort of thing? -- NotCharizard 🗨 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Association football at FAR

I have nominated Association football for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sonny Leon

I recently created an article for Sonny Leon, the jockey of Rich Strike, the winner of the 2022 Kentucky Derby. His notability has been questioned. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Rfc on sports team's navboxes

How should we deal with sports team navboxes? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Added by Primefac (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) see note below


Starting this Rfc after a Tfd discussion last month on March 7, 2022, concerning navboxes for sports teams created for tournaments in their respective sport. The templates nominated were kept as there had been previous consensus to keep the men's Cricket World Cup men's team's navboxes from the August 21, 2018 Tfd. An issue that was raised by the nominator and the lone delete vote, plus my comment on the nomination, is that there is confusion on what templates should be kept and which one should be deleted. This should not be only of concern to the Cricket Project from both Tfd's mentioned, but to all sports projects on Wikipedia. Current squad, players on the active roster, navboxe are not of issue with this rfc.

I'd say there are three options on how to deal with the confusion/issue of all these squad templates. Do you support or oppose the following:

  1. The team/squad tournament navboxes that should be kept are the ones that win the tournament/championship. Since the winning team is more notable than a runner-up or the team that lost. For instance, winners of the World Series, SuperBowl, and the NBA Chamiponships only have naboxes for teams that won. Not for teams that didn't or qualified for a playoff spot or won a round in a playoff series. From what I could find on the MLS teams, they don't have a squad template for teams that win the MLS Cup. I'm of this opinion because if we have navboxes for every team that didn't win the championship, then it would fall under Creep and Cruft. Wikipedia still has issues with these two areas.
  2. The tournament squad navboxes that should be kept are the winning and runner-up teams.
  3. All tournament squad templates should be kept regardless.

If there are other options then they should be stated below.

Another issue is also the creation of such templates done by editors in good faith, but in my view, it clutters up Wikipedia just like the massive backlog of unused templates. Sports projects should consider adopting policy on creating navboxes related to their scope and decide which among the options above or ones suggested by others will be best suited for the respective project.

After posting this Rfc, I'll inform the various sports projects for their input.

Pining the following people who have been involved in such discussions, not just the two mentioned above, at Tfd's: Lugnuts, Joseph2302, Nigej, Wjemather, PeeJay, Spike 'em, Frietjes, Jonesey95, Gonnym, Pppery, Number 57, Izno, Plastikspork --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan, I have added a one-line question-statement to your RFC at the top line - you are welcome to rephrase it as you like but RFC opening statements (that get copied over by the bot) need to be short. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. I just forgot about it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you rephrase it, so that a support/oppose response (or at least, a choice between a small number of options) means something? An rfc question of "How do we deal with X?" is great wrt brevity, but is too vague for an Rfc opener, and sounds a lot like the "Bad questions" listed in the right-floated box at WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify that we're talking here about navboxes created for sports teams created for tournaments etc (which would include the Olympics etc). There are many "current squad" navboxes around but I think we ought to ignore these in the current discussion to keep it focused. As I noted in the discussion noted we have a situation like Mithali Raj#External links where you have to click three times even to open the navbox. Given that the supposed purpose of a WP:NAVBOX is to help the reader navigate between articles, it seems to me that many uses of this type of navbox are not actually designed to aid navigation but to be decorative award-type banners at the bottom of articles. As noted, these are created in good faith by editors who presumably think that this type of navbox is what Wikipedia is all about, having seen countless examples in other articles. The reality is that if a reader wants to know about the squads in the 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup they will go to that article and navigate from there, not using the navboxes (indeed I've been to a couple of the Men's World Cup finals (1979 and 1983) and that's exactly what I did to remind myself of those long-ago days). Personally I'd be happy to get rid of all of them, since hardly any actually aid navigation. However, what's most important is that we provide some sort of "rule" as to what is and what isn't suitable. Does Mithali Raj really need 18 tournament squad navboxes (plus a current squad)? How do these aid navigation? Nigej (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Can I just advocate for a complete deletion of navboxes for teams who did not win major tournaments? I'm not even a big fan of this, but if we start creating templates for teams who don't win (especially in games like football where people move between clubs during tournaments) is incredibly crufty. Surely we can handle this with categories better anyway? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as a TFD admin, the current precedent is to delete this type of navbox for all but the top 2-4 teams (outcome depends on the sport and the discussion). Very rarely do non-medal-winning team navboxes get kept. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Even for runner-up teams, it seems like a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Those get deleted as well sometimes. I'm not advocating either way, just reporting on discussions I've closed over the years. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Squad_navboxes for a not-at-all-comprehensive list of discussions. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Although when I proposed deleting some netball navboxes of this type (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Template:Northern Ireland squad at the 2019 Netball World Cup) it was branded as "Yet another example of an editor with nothing better to do." And netball is nothing like the worst sport in this area, in fact it's one of the better ones. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
And we have situations like {{2021 United States Ryder Cup team}}/{{2021 European Ryder Cup team}} where it makes no sense to me to keep the winning team and delete the losing one. Keep both or delete both. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be up for deleting both. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Ideally we should deal with this sport-by-sport, and the scope of the RFC is too wide, what kind of navboxes are we discussing, all of them? If it is a 'current roster' template for a club (NFL team, soccer team etc.) that gets updated when players leave or join, that is fine. However, if it is the '1991 X squad' for a club then delete - and we have done so for soccer at TFD for years, even for those that win major championships. If it is an international tournament (such as World Cup or Olympics) with a squad that would never change, then keep it. GiantSnowman 20:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally I feel that navboxes for teams that have competed in major tournaments (World Cups, Olympics etc) are ok. However when navboxes are created for team that have won a yearly domestic tournament for example, or created for each team in a yearly tournament I don't see fit. GiantSnowman makes a good point above on it being different for different sports, as in rugby union teams competing in a four-yearly world cup I think is fine with having a navbox, but a navbox for a yearly domestic tournament, or non-notable international tournaments aren't required. In some sports it'll be different though. A navbox for each Super Bowl winning team may well be of interest and use to the reader, but a 2021 Women's domestic cricket trophy winner may not be as necessary and of use. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Surely the question in not whether they "may well be of interest and use", but whether they actually aid navigation between articles, supposedly the sole purpose of a WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Personally I feel that my point still stands and navboxes for winning/running up sides, and teams from major tournaments and events aid navigation as a reader may be looking for articles on other people from those events, but yearly domestic or non-notable international ones don't, as they for certain individuals will lead to large number of navboxes, which clutter articles and don't aid navigation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
We're not discussing "current squads" but we are discussing navboxes like {{Afghanistan football squad 1948 Summer Olympics}}. Nigej (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
That is not clear from the RFC. In fact, the RFC says that it deals with "all these squad templates", which indicates that we are discussing 'current squads'. GiantSnowman 20:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Pretty clear from the nomination, before and after the quoted part, that WCM is talking about tournament templates. All of their examples are also for tournaments. Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful if WCM clarified their opening statement. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Current/Active team squad navboxes are not of discussion for this rfc. Sorry if that wasn't clear. They don't represent any major issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hell, I feel strongly that navbox proliferation is a big problem, and has gone completely ridiculous. If someone proposed deprecating them altogether, I'd be in favor. But that being said, even championship-only navboxes aren't the answer; we all know sports where longstanding rosters on perennial champions can easily result in players with a dozen or more boxes. Ravenswing 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure of what the numbers are precisely, but it seems there are more squad navboxes for non-championship teams than there are for winning teams. One example is Mithali Raj's page where there are only six navboxes for championships and twelve non-championship teams. I don't think players who have been on multiple winning teams consist of too many navboxes at the moment. Derek Jeter has won the world series only five teams and has five Yankees World Series champion team navboxes. LeBron James has only seven championship, NBA and international tournments, navboxes. The only clutter of sorts on James' page is all the award navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Nikola Karabatić the best handballer has at the moment 11 navboxes for the national team (2012 onward). I thinks other users will create the boxes before 2012 too. In the end this would mean he would have around 20 boxes. If only first places at the Olympics, World Championships and Euros were allowed he would still have 10 boxes. This is only with the national team. If also navboxes for championships club seasons would be created this would mean he would have additionally 19 navboxes. In the end he would have around 30 boxes. In my eyes this is too much. I personally think only navboxes about the current team should be allowed or ells only navboxes with the national team and not about club championships seasons. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm of the view that all sports should be considered together. A navbox is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia" (WP:NAVBOX). Surely issues relating to {{Japan men's football squad 2020 Summer Olympics}} and {{Japan men's volleyball team 2020 Summer Olympics}} are fundamentally the same. And even outside the multi-sport area I don't see why Japan at the nnnn football world cup should be treated differently to Japan at the nnnn volleyball world cup (or whatever). In addition the issue of WP:TCREEP, making navboxes less useful as their numbers in each article increases, applies universally. If we're going to keep these, we need arguments based on their usefulness for navigation. Nigej (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Although having said all that, I would assume that if we were to embark on a significant deletion of these via TfD, then each sport would be considered separately at that stage. Not knowing the logistics, I'm hoping we can have a WP:SPORTSNAVBOX (or whatever), detailing a consensus approach, which would enable a TfD nominator to make a proposal based on that. I think that would carry more weight than the current situation, where the nominator usually argues on the basis of earlier TfDs. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, something along the lines of WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV, particularly "avoid over-proliferation of navigation templates" sounds like a good idea. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I can only speak for the sports that I spend the most time working on, but I feel like things are okay as they are for soccer, rugby union and cricket: current squad templates for most existing clubs (at least at the top level where info is available), and historic squads for all teams at major international tournaments (e.g. World Cups, European Championships, etc.). That last one should only apply to competitions that take place every few years though, so not the Six Nations in rugby union, and not individual cricket tours (even the Ashes). Things seem okay in the NFL sphere too, where every team has navboxes for their current roster and any championship years. I honestly don't believe this is excessive. – PeeJay 08:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
They may not be excessive but the question to be answered is a different one, that is whether they really serve their sole purpose, which it to help readers navigate between articles. Nigej (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Current squad templates seem fine for navigation for me (even if for example a cricketer may be in 2 or 3 teams at the same time). I already raised a discussion for some cricket templates here], and wouldn't be averse to removing some others (does the fact that two people played together at the 1992 Cricket World Cup really mean that you'd use that to navigate between them, for instance?) I do however think this will be hard to do at a general sports level, as there will be nuances for different sports (which lots of sports editors won't know about, if they aren't involved with that sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
If we were to go down the route of saying that tournament team templates are ok for the winning team, then I agree that a further restriction of saying that even some of these are of doubtful use, that would certainly need to be done at the individual sport level. Nigej (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I believe they serve their intended purpose. I can't speak for every reader, but I use the navbox templates a lot. – PeeJay 10:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I get the feeling people like to tinker with this site just for the sake of it. I don't see what value removing these navboxes would have, so I vote to just keep them as is. If there's too many of them, so what?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
When navboxes are used as decoration rather than for their stated purpose of navigation between closely related articles, articles become cluttered with the navboxes actually being a hindrance to navigation, defeating their purpose. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe any of these are used decoratively, they all serve as useful navigation points between related articles. Talking about the FIFA World Cup squad navboxes, I don't believe it's at all unreasonable to expect to be able to navigate between the members of the Republic of Ireland's 2002 World Cup squad, for example. – PeeJay 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
A few comments. Just to reiterate, the RfC isn't about general squad templates (current, former, historical, etc.) but about tournament squads. Lets not sidetrack this discussion. I agree with Nigej that this is a general issue to all sports and should not be treated as a case by case issue. I also agree with Malo95 that having 20 navboxes for an individual just for tournament teams is a real issue as at that point editors are more likely to just to not use it. I think WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns are valid here. While Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is an essay, I agree with that statement - not everything needs a navbox. Playing in the world cup but coming last with zero wins is not really an achievement. Some countries have it easier qualifying for the tournament than others (European qualification is hard while that isn't correct for all zones). I can see the value in the winning team and partially in the runner up. Another point that is worth noting is that a lot (all maybe?) of these templates don't have an associated category which is pretty telling. If we don't deem these teams to be worthy of categorization then a template is probably also not appropriate. If this RfC passes and there still is an issue, we can have a follow up discussion later - not everything needs to be solved now. So support the 2nd option. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the default should be no, unless there is a project-specific consensus for major tournaments, so defaulting to keep for the most major soccer, rugby, and cricket tournaments. These navboxes would either help me navigate between players on the same World Cup squad or provide me a clear view of which other players were on the same World Cup squad in sports with important quadrennial World Cups, but they should be the exception rather than the rule. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Since this RFC has expired today, I think there is consensus for the first and second options. Normally, prior to this discussion, if a runner-up squad template or a non-runner-up squad navbox was nominated at Tfd, it was based on the merit that it was not capable of navigation and that it was of a not notable team, unlike a championship-winning team. So, I guess, even with the consideration of the case-by-case for the sports project as noted a few times such as the soccer, rugby, and cricket projects, consensus can change. WP:SPORTSNAVBOX is a great idea so there is a clear procedure on what navboxes for teams should and shouldn't be created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

FIBA Archive

Please tell me whether you see the same mess I do, on this website. It had been working fine until recently and now I see everything stuck on the left side there. The problem is, I edited dozens of basketball articles last year with those references from FIBA Archive. And now I don't know what to do with it. Maiō T. (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed That was a wrong website. The correct one is this (archive.fiba.com instead of www.fiba.basketball). Now I have dozens of articles to edit with these new references. Maiō T. (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

90min services section edit request

Hello editors, I'm M and I work for Minute Media. I was hoping one of you might be kind enough to look over an open edit request for the Services section I posted on the 90min talk page. I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. Looking forward to working with you all and thanks in advance for taking a look. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Some articles do not mention what sport they cover

There are a significant number of sport articles, usually lists of season results, or tournament results, that make no mention of what sport is involved. This is not helpful to the reader who does not already know the sport, and makes it difficult to compose short descriptions. I fix what I can, but it is tedious to work through several categories from a season article to find out that the Melbourne Renegades are cricketers. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You may need to give me a better example. That article starts: The Melbourne Renegades are an Australian professional men's Twenty20 franchise cricket club based in Melbourne, the capital city of the Australian state of Victoria. Whilst this isn't optimal wording, the lede sentence specifically says cricket club. Are there articles that don't say the sport in the lede sentence? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, this is better: The Melbourne Renegades are an Australian professional men's cricket team from Melborne, Victoria. A Twenty20... Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Squash (sport), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Work on new article "1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game" of Australian Rules football completed

The lengthy and arduous task of compiling the accurate and detailed article on the 28 October 1916 exhibition match of Australian Rules football, contested in London between two teams of AIF soldiers, is now completed. Please see both 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game and Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Notability guidelines for association football

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal shown here for the notability criteria for association football (soccer)?

Proposal

Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

  • Have participated in a major senior level international competition (such as the FIFA World Cup with qualifiers, the continental championships with some qualifiers depending on which confederation, and the continental Nations Leagues), excluding friendlies
  • Have participated in the playoff stages of major international club competitions (such as the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana)
  • Have participated in at least one of of the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other proposed leagues that are deemed notable

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 [link].

Ivan Milenin (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal, while noting the list of notable leagues is still a work in progress. Provided this shuts out leagues that do not receive significant coverage. OGLV (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it is more defined and detailed, this is basically a rehash of the old FOOTY notability guideline[11], that Village Pump decided we should remove based on the criteria being simply participating(see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability). While one of football's problem was the large list of leagues and define the "fully professional" aspect of them, the Village Pump was looking at several sports and with exception of the Olympics, removing simple participation as a valid criteria. This proposal would still be considered notability based on particiaption. There were discussion for alternatives/replacements, but none could be decided and for now just using WP:GNG is the replacement. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this specific proposal hasn't been discussed anywhere beforehand, so shouldn't have been put up for RFC. This is almost the same wording as the old WP:NFOOTY, which was depreciated. Some proposal to add criteria for NFOOTY could be tabled into an RFC at some point, but not this undiscussed proposal. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If discussion had preceded this proposal, it would never have reached this stage; it lacks the necessary concision and clarity, while also deferring to a non-guideline page. It looks like an attempt to reinstate the old unacceptable guideline. If a solid proposal cannot be formulated from the discussions on this, i.e. one that enjoys a good level of consensus from those discussions, one should not be brought forward here. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above comments and the fact that we need something very precise. Phrases like "with some qualifiers depending on which confederation", "such as ..." and "... and other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" make it unacceptable. Nigej (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Participation-based criteria was shot down sports-wide. Full stop. Looking back at the discussions in which the OP participated at the time, he cannot be unaware of this. People are going to have to get used to creating soccer articles based on whether the subjects meet the GNG, and preferably beyond the mass sub-stub creation that (a) resulted in the breathtakingly absurd figure of one of SEVEN biographical articles being of soccer players, which (b) led to the open revolt shooting down participation criteria NSPORTS-wide. Ravenswing 03:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above comments, and because it doesn't include all aspects of the proposed entry within the entry, instead linking to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football. I also don't believe it is appropriate to hold this discussion here, rather than at WP:NSPORT or preferably WP:VPP. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

  • I was chosen at random by a bot to comment this proposal. I waited in the hope that I would see comments from others. It's difficult for me to make a comment without seeing first some arguments in favour of it and against it. At this time, I only have a question. What is the purpose of having a criteria to determine that significant coverage is likely to exist? It seems to me that the important thing is whether there is actually some coverage. Even if we know that coverage is likely to exist, we still have to find that coverage. Otherwise, there is nothing to put in the article, except information that would fit better in a list. Conversely, even if coverage is unlikely to exist, if it actually exists and it's notable, then there is content for an article. Again, I am not against or in favour of it. It's just the question that comes to my mind. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Dominic Mayers, I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the rationale is that said "significant coverage" that is presumed to exist might not be readily accessible to many English WP editors, and that would disproportionately affect players from non-Western and/or underpriviledged countries; who would, presumably, be as notable as their English or American counterparts (because there is no reason to assume they wouldn't be), but cannot be immediately confirmed due to the inaccessibility of sources (many of which would exist only in physical printed media) from those countries to English or American editors. Said articles affected would be stubs, since, as you note, there would be no coverage to fill them with. But the idea is that, at some time in the future, those stubs may be turned into full articles when sourced coverage is brought forth. (The deletion policy is not that an article already contain content, only that it is notable and suitablesources exist from which content CAN be created in the future). Hope that helps :) SirTramtryst (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    What I don't understand is what criteria would be used, if not the known coverage, to create these stubs? Is the proposal to create a stub for all players that meet these requirements, even though we know there is a possibility that some might not have any coverage? It seems to me that we need evidence of sufficient coverage in addition to the proposed criteria before we create a stub. Note that a reference, even if it's printed material that is not available online, count as coverage. If the issue is whether coverage that is not available online is valid coverage, then the RfC asked the wrong question. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    It's a completely undiscussed proposal, which is different to the main proposals being discussion elsewhere. I'm sure this breaks some RFC rule, as this proposal has not been discussed anywhere beforehand. The inevitable failure of this poorly thought out RFC shouldn't be seen as a reason to reject any future, decently discussed football notability RFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Where to discuss other purposes of this matter if RFC fails to work at this stage? Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Fwiw, I think this proposal is likely irrelevant. I can't think that any major international players such as these wouldn't meet GNG regardless. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's true. "other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" for instance, seems to include the old 4th division (and 3rd south, 3rd north), way below international level. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Check this [out if this suffice your concern]. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, that's a crazy backdoor to "all professional leagues". This proposal had me thinking it was literally just top leagues that directly mentioned. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Asking for help with Dodgeball World Championship

Hi everyone,

I've started an article on the Dodgeball World Championship, but as I lack experience, I'd really appreciate help with editing and improving it. Thanks! Spiritof73 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Titlename of tennis tournaments

Hi, we on the tennis project have incurred into some problems regarding the choice of titlename of the main article of a tournament. We have internal guidelines who says to "avoid if possible sponsor name in the title of main article". We agree on that and the project has been consistent on avoiding them, whenever is possible. (We use sponsor names in the title only on yearly editions).

In the specific case, though, we are at a stall between two opposite interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME policy, of what is "common, recognizable, short, coincise" titlename .

There are two interpretations i resume here, but i really want the discussion to be continued there, because some users have participated and someone made an hard point to not move the discussion from there.

So, only for the sake of helping you to have a grasp of the whole situation, the two different approaches to the aforementioned wiki policy are:

Top sources (advocated by Fyunck)
The common name is the name most used by sources, prominently by top quality newspapers (ha added some specific links), which are the sources we use for writing the article itself. Plus historic names are better than recent ones. He argues on having little compromise but just between these two criteria when choosing the title.

Top search results (advocated by me, Opencross)
The common name is the most searched name (in google searches) among those prominent sources (official, newspapers and such) use to refer to the tournament. So we should choose the one which is a compromise over the most looked at, and thus used more by people. Preference should be given, in case of similar popularity, to the city name most looked at, if two locations are used.

This resume is not complete or detailed, it's just a resume, I don't want to dig into it further, you can read more about it and the counterarguments to both proposals here and in the link posted in the first lines above ( which is the main section of this link), and continue the discussion there.

I think that, being this a general case over a wikipedia policy, the main project should be involved and give their opinions on. Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Note - It is incorrect to say Top Sources are advocated by one person. It is advocated by (Fyunck, Adamtt9, Tvx1). I tried a simple correction but it was reverted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Note - Result was "Not Moved." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, that RM was closed not even after 12 hours i give notice on Tennis project's talk page about this invite.
    I talked with the admin who closed it, and he said the RM was already longstanding and got automatically moved into backlog, so he went on to close it. About this related question, he suggested generically to just not repeat the RM thread. And i'm ok with that.
    So, for the question about WP:COMMONNAME over tennis tournament's main pages, i would like to hear if anybody has some opinion about it.
    This is clearly about a more general wikipedia policy, which is greater than a single thread as it involves a whole lot of tournaments. I mean, it should have been clarified in the tennis guidelines since its start, because yearly editions of tennis tournaments change names every 3-5 years on average, even shorter periods lately, so it's important to know how to make a stable title for the main page. Opencross (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's a case by case basis as no two tournaments are alike and there may be other tournaments with the same name already. We look at sources and we look at tournament history. I don't think it has anything to do with policy. Guidelines are pretty flexible and common sense always has a look. This is exactly what WikiProject Tennis was made for. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's clearly not a case-by-case choice, since there are already (generic) guidelines about titlename on tennis wikiproject. Otherwise there would not have been any mention about that and all would have been left to the 3-4 users who are browsing that talk page everyday to decide.
    Anyhow, you already expressed your opinion on the matter, as i did, and i reported both of them above, in a fair way, as resume.
    I want to listen to sport users' opinions about the issue, since it's a question over the general policy, and i think they need to have their saying about. And if they don't think so, they will show that.
    In any case it's not up for you to decide who can or cannot talk. Or to change other people comments on this talk page without even asking or posting an edit summary about (which is against WP:TPO).
    Jeez, you didn't even wait for others opinions to show up... you already started to preemptively advance your POV even here...
    Let others talk, already. Opencross (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    You know something.... get that chip off your shoulder already. I added two names to those you missed in your post here. That's it. I thought I was doing a favor. Obviously not since you reverted it. I'm cool with that but I was forced to explain it in an extra post. I'm not stopping people from talking and it has nothing to do with "policy." ZIP. You posted this at Tennis Project and three editors joined in, all disagreeing with you. I have no idea really why it's even posted here but that's your prerogative to do so. And I posted nothing except the correction until you reverted it. There are generic guidelines but each event is a little different so we take them case by case. So please stop with the nastiness towards me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Could someone pass up some examples for this discussion as to articles and the different options available? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    Well, we had one RM just closed about "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships".
    This was the historical name used back when the tournament was created:
    Fyunck wanted to make some small at best some tweaking over this title using "Rosmalen Championships", or "Rosmalen Open" with less enthusiasm, so to say.
    I did some research on google searches with the notable alternatives and found out this list of commonly used titlenames ( in decreasing order of popularity):
    1. 's-Hertogenbosch Open
    2. Rosmalen Open
    3. (ATP 's-Hertogenbosch)*
    4. Libéma Open
    5. Rosmalen Championships
    6. Rosmalen Grass Court Championships
    7. 's-Hertogenbosch Grass Court Championships
    • (ATP/WTA 's-Hertogenbosch and ATP/WTA Rosmalen were taken into account for the sake of knowing which location was more widely known in regard to ATP/WTA tag, which are the main professional tennis circuits. And the numbers are like 10 to 2 in favor of 's-Hertogenbosch, especially if you take out the 's- part, which most people dispense of as difficult).
    So, as you can see my proposal was on top of the list, the actual used the second to last, and Fyunck compromise was third to last.
    And that was when the argument of historic name and giving preference to "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships" as the most used title by sources was advanced ( adding a few name of newspapers that use that name for the tournament).
    I asked here but it was too late for the RM which was already longstanding and it was closed.
    I'm not asking to re-open that, i am just using a well-searched example, so as you can clarify the interpretation over the WP:COMMONNAME wiki policy of having a titlename that should be "recognizable, natural, short, coincise". Which titlename would you have chosen from the ones above and especially why? That would be of great help for the project, since it would clear the way to the correct interpretation in similar cases. Thank you.
  • p.s: further example:
    Cincinnati Masters, titlename used on en.wikipedia which is abnormously less cited than Cincinnati Open on google search: a ratio of 1 to 68 !
    Another one U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships Houston, actually used on wiki to U.S. Championships Houston. Ratio of 1 to 13. Opencross (talk) 22:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    But your ratios you are presenting don't paint an accurate picture as your Google searches aren't precise enough and are presenting skewed data. Your search of US Championships Houston isn't presenting every case of that exact term but instead every instance of US and Championships and Houston. I would bet that a lot of search hits have absolutely no relationship to the tennis tournament itself. Same can be said for Cincinnati Open. Any website that has the words Cincinnati and open will come up in your search. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    For example, the tenth page of results for Cincinnati Open leads to a list of restaurants available for reserving a table through OpenTable. Adamtt9 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    And Cincinnati Masters/Open also has a convoluted history. When it became a men's Masters level event in 1990 there was no women's event. The ladies had no Cincinnati event for 30 years when in 2004 it came back as a minor low level tournament. Then in 2009 the women upgraded it to a Premier level event. The press usually calls it the Cincinnati Masters event though it was never really called that by the women's tour... they use Cincinnati Open. I'm not saying that after 14 years as a high level women's event that it shouldn't now be titled Cincinnati Open... that's a very good topic.... but it gives you an idea of what Tennis Project has to go through in figuring these things out per sourcing and duplicate article titles and titles that best fit all concerned throughout an event's history. Cincinnati has a 123 year history. It's ok since that's exactly what the project is designed to do since editors that deal with and have a love for tennis know many of these nuisances. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Lee Vilenski:I don't know of any except the one brought up here. It was at Project Tennis talk and was closed by Ellsworth without much fanfare. A general view would be that unlike most sports, tennis tournaments take on the name of their current sponsor, and those sponsors change all the time. Something like the Miami Open. If you scroll down the list of years you see links to every yearly event... and the yearly name changes all the time. Some years it's the Lipton International Players Championships, sometimes it's the NASDAQ Open, sometimes it's the Sony Open, and sometimes it's the Miami Open. We have to put the tournament name under some sort of title so by longstanding consensus we use a non-sponsored sourced name that encompasses all the events held at the location. Sources usually make that easy-peazy so we have Miami Open. Of course in this case there are two golf events and two tennis events with that name so we make it Miami Open (tennis) and made the other events Miami Open (golf) and WCT Miami Open. It's sort of case by case. Each individual yearly event we use it's name for that year so for 2012 for instance it under 2012 Sony Ericsson Open. Tennis is really screwy this way.
    Now this method is not in question here. What came up in this case was the non-sponsored name of the event had several varieties in sources. The original name of the event, "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships" which is quite long but has longstanding consensus of use in tennis articles. In sources you also see the tournament itself with it's sponsored name this year as "Libema Open Grass Court Championship", the press calling it the "Rosmalen Championship", "Rosmalen Open", or "Rosmalen Grass Court Championships." It is located in the town of Rosmalen just outside of the city of 'S-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands. It was brought to Tennis Project 11 days ago and no one agreed to move it to the " 'S-Hertogenbosch Open" so it was closed. There may have been some wiggle room with "Rosmalen Championships" or "Rosmalen Open" but that wasn't the move request. I don't see a policy or even guideline issue here at all. Tennis Project does the best it can in these situations by looking at sources, original non-sponsored tournament names, and trying to avoid the same name as another Wikipedia article. It is not always easy to be sure. I hope that helps explain the situation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
    As you can see User:Lee Vilenski, this is the type of answers you get when you start a discussion on wiki tennis project's talk page.
    One argues over the 10th page of google search, the other says wikipedia is as good as it is, but provides no supporting rationale for that (apart from counting votes in the last RM, and that "consensus in use" if has it ever existed). Opencross (talk) 00:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    And as a brand new editor you should stop insinuating your prima donna hierarchy and start working as a team. All I see from you is complaining or personal attacks when it doesn't go your way. It's getting quite old. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
    It's quite the opposite, i had proficuous discussions with all other users in here, i have no prejudice whatsoever, until well...i got personal attacked. Do i need to mention what offenses i received? I think you 've already red them in the topic on the tennis TP. So, just to set things straight i'm not making things up.
    I can see that there's some hurdle to let other ideas in and to think about them, to the point it has been evoked a "consensus in use" which simply doesn't exist in any wiki policy. That is tantamount to make things up.
    I can see the rationale behind that, to keep tennis project just as it is, and delete by walling off with specious arguments and recasting into voting any disliked proposal, instead of discussing it in the merit and explain why it is good or bad, which again is and should be the standard answer on tennis' tp, as it is everywhere else.
    Moreover, i also see that that dislike grows to the point of making personal point modifying otherwise good recent edits of the proposal filer in order to "put him into his place". This has been a marked behaviour by all of you three. I don't take that personally at all, i don't think i own articles i edited on, i welcome anyone digging into them and making useful edits. But i think that those bad edits of yours made out of a whim are just the kind of acts which make tennis pages full of errors, incongruous and inhomogeneous, in short they make tennis wikipages unreliable to a new user looking through them. And i think no matter how many edits one could make, (one thousands.. five thousands), it will always be there and will draw back and nullify any attempts to reorganize and correct it. Opencross (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok. This is probably a bit overblown at this point. From the above it sounds like we are talking about a single article, and not a series of articles - although if I'm wrong let me know. There are some policies that are relevant. WP:COMMONNAME (and by association WP:NAMECHANGES), WP:CONCISE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:NATDAB. Some people will point to google source results as to why a name is the most common used, but this is a bit of a fallacy. We are talking about an event that has run for 32 years, and has had a certain sponsor from 2018 onwards. My actual worry is that each of the individual events uses a different sponsorship name (see 1999 Heineken Trophy), which are realistically the issue here. We do have events that have different sponsors each year, such as the FA Premier League and the World Snooker Championship, however, each individual event follows the main title of the event. So, the issue is what name should be applied across these events. I'm a bit surprised that there is any issue at all, as the events take place at the Autotron Rosmalen. If the event only had one sponsor, and was only known by that name, there would be no issue, as we can use sponsors in the name in that instance, see Etihad Stadium, and 1985 Kit Kat Break for World Champions. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

90min lead edit request

Hello editors, I'm M and I work for Minute Media. I was hoping one of you might be kind enough to look over an open edit request for the lead of the 90min article I posted on the 90min Talk page. I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. Looking forward to working with you all and thanks in advance for taking a look. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Essentially unreferenced 'results' articles

Hi - I'm looking to get some eyes from experienced editors on sports topics on an issue with a couple of articles. I've indef blocked one of the editors involved for double (or more like quadrupling) down on personal attacks, but the content issue they were angry about doesn't sit well with me so I'd appreciate some input from others.

Draft:United States results in women's freestyle wrestling was recently created in article space; it's essentially an alternative version of the article United States results in men's freestyle wrestling, but with the content changed to show the results in the women's sport. It was draftified on the grounds that it was effectively unreferenced - there are three external links given in the 'references' section, none of which is live, and looking at archived versions it's not obvious how they support the content. To make any of the content verifiable, some work would need to be done on the referencing.

The author of the article took exception to the draftification, and started throwing around accusations of misogyny, which they refused to step back from after multiple warnings and attempts to explain the NPP review process, hence they block. While the personal attacks were unacceptable, I have some sympathy for their argument that the sourcing on the old men's article is no better than that of the new women's one - this is correct, it literally has the same three external links as refs, which don't directly support any of the content. So my question for editors here is whether anyone has the knowledge of appropriate sourcing in this subject, and the time and interest, to improve on the sourcing for both articles, improving the verifiability of the existing men's article, and allowing the draft women's article to be moved back into mainspace uncontroversially. Is anyone up for this? Girth Summit (blether) 11:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

If the men's article cannot be appropriately verified, then anything unverified should be removed as per the usual rules. If this leaves us with an empty article, then it should be deleted. Same is true for the women's article; the only reason it got punted back to Draft is that it's not 12 years old (and thus not immune from dratification). Primefac (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
That being said, having just looked at the men's article, I think the main issue with either of these pages is that it is effectively a "summary" article, wherein the content might actually be sourced at the related page (e.g. the 1904 Olympic wrestling info is at the related Olympics page). Of course, this means that the references should be copied over, but then we go down a rabbit hole because the latter related page barely has references itself... Primefac (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's my issue - both articles are summaries, almost lists - they are probably verifiable if someone were willing to do the leg work and add the sources. Not my area at all though, I didn't want to start hacking away at anything if there are sources out there that could simply be added to support the existing content. Girth Summit (blether) 12:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

"Women's Championship"

FYI, the usage of Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion; see talk: FA Women's Championship -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Medals sections of infoboxes

What do we think should be in the medals sections of infoboxes. 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. It seems that if an event is important enough to have its own article, it is fair game for medals. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA 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. These competitions don't seem to have articles on WP, so I am wondering if I could include these in medals sections of infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I got no response here. I did get a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes. I am not following this page anymore, but if you have further comments, comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I think only international global events (World Championships and MSE games) should be included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Please keep the discussion in one place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:HC Visé Basse Meuse#Requested move 21 June 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HC Visé Basse Meuse#Requested move 21 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

World Governing Body

I am hoping someone involved in the WikiProject Sports can tell me if there is an official manner in which an organization becomes a World Governing Body for a specific sport, other than an organization claiming the title. I am particularly interested with respect to the sport of Pickleball. The International Federation of Pickleball has claimed to the the world governing body since it was created by USA Pickleball in 2010, but USA Pickleball has since withdrawn. The World Pickleball Federation was formed in 2018, but has fewer member countries than the IFP. USA Pickleball hasn't stated what they plan to do, but they represent a majority of the current world pickleball players. Canada, representing the second largest number of players, is a member of the WPF. India, representing the third largest number of players, is a member of the IFP. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

  • None, of course. (As it happens, I recently read a long and informative article on the pickleball governance controversy.) Organizations can claim for themselves just about anything they please, and the degree to which they can strongarm other would-be umbrella organizations and regional/national leagues varies greatly. Until the late 1950s, for instance, FIFA's control over soccer wasn't absolute; the four British home islands national federations collectively controlled changes in rules for the game, and even now FIFA cannot change the rules without the concurrence of at least two of those federations. The National Hockey League and National Basketball Association respectively thumb their noses at the IIHF and FIBA, and they're too powerful to overrun or threaten. Boxing's another famously fragmented sport. Ravenswing 00:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    That was pretty much my thinking on the matter, but I thought maybe someone in the Sports Wikiproject might be aware of something I wasn't. Would you be able to share or direct me to the article on pickleball governance that you refer to? Thank you for your response. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Infobox athletic conference

Template:Infobox athletic conference has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox sports league. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Addition of World Cup/Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals to infoboxes

Should World Cup/Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals (for events being held every year) be added to info boxes of athlete bios? My initial thought is they shouldn't be, and the infoboxes should be reserved for continental/world championships, Olympics and other major MSE events. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? What does everyone else think? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

User:CLalgo has been added Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals to judo articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only editor/sport having these medals added to the info boxes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Sportsfan 1234: This is a discussion you should have started before reverting edits, on the verge of edit warring, on the articles of Shady El Nahas, François Gauthier-Drapeau and Keagan Young. Now, let us break your question to its relevant components. In judo, the subject at matter, Grand Slam/Grand Prix events are part of the IJF World Tour and award as many (GP), or more (GS), world ranking points as continental championships.[12] These medals can be found in the infoboxes of most judoka, much thanks to the hard labor of JanPleun. World cup events aren't held in judo for many years now, and irrelevant to the subject at hand. CLalgo (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You need to stop playing victim. Its getting old, fast. This also isn't a discussion exclusive to Judo, hence the inclusion of World Cup, as other sports title their world tours as "World Cups". Secondly, this discussions is about including events that are held on a yearly basis. Do we include them or not? Where do we draw the line? Literally no other sport has "World Tour" events listed in their infobox. I propose a list of years/medals like in Tennis [13], where major events such as the Olympics show medals, while World Tour events held everywhere are listed in a subsection in the infobox. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Your wanted discussion may be broad, but your edit war is narrow and held over judo related articles. We shall discuss them, and not the whole project. In any case, You can't revert edits and delete information from articles, when in other articles of the same nature the information is available. Stop edit warring, stop threatening me after I've warned you not to edit war, and discuss the matter and not the person ("You need to stop playing victim.."). CLalgo (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
You are playing victim, claiming I am threatening you when we are having a civilized discussion, get a grip please. We are discussing this on WP:SPORTS so this discussion is NOT just related to judo. "When in other articles of the same nature the information is available" which is single sourced. Please point out to me bio's of any other sport with World Series events linked in their infobox. I will wait. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I do not know what you are trying to achieve. Hundreds of judoka have medals in their infoboxes, but just these to Canadian judoka shouldn't? This is absurd. CLalgo (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT. I am definitely not saying that. I don't think they should be included across all biography articles. Hence why I started a discussion here to gauge the opinion of a wider audience. As an edit warrior, CLalgo, you should know that discussions are important to solving disputes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
First, if I were an edit warrior, I wouldn't know that.
Second, let's keep to the point. Why shouldn't the medals be presented as they are? @JanPleun, Simeon, Almagestas, Faycal.09, and DrAndCol: Pinging you editors that might have something to add on the subject. CLalgo (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
My point is the infobox should be used to summarize key details. If we are going to list World Tour events in the infobox, we are going to run into lengthy infoboxes with way too much information. This is why I think it should be reserved for major events such as the Olympics or major multi sporting events. Everything else can be summarized in the prose or through a section dedicated to grand slams, such as majors in tennis. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I like the way information is presented in Roger Federer so, if there is consensus for it, we could update {{Infobox judoka}} to have a section for the IJF Grand Slam / Grand Prix medals. I would say it's reasonable to have some sport-specific senior level medals included, in addition to the world / continental / Olympic medals, as they form part of an athlete's career. For judo I think the number of medals may be ok (if displayed properly in the infobox) but I think for the Karate1 Premier League a talented karateka may end up with too many medals for the infobox. As another example, for archery I've been including the World Cup medals as well (e.g., Ella Gibson, Casey Kaufhold). I do think all the cadet / junior medals, such as in Michaela Polleres, is excessive so perhaps a line can be drawn at senior level medals (possibly with the exception of the Youth Olympic Games, and it's probably different for gymnastics as well). Simeon (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Simeon: Thanks for joining the discussion. My problem with adopting {{Infobox tennis biography}}'s way of presenting Grand Slam achievements is that the GS host cities aren't fixed in judo as they are in tennis, and the the chronological order of GS\GP seems, to me, more important than their location. One thing I do like in tennis players articles is the Career statistics section, that could find a place in judoka articles. As previously said, that is a BIG project. Currently, the section most resembling it might be Sagi Muki's Titles section, with great similarities, of course. CLalgo (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234: For your arguments:
  1. WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't apply here, as this is not a case of "similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page", but in all other pages. There is a difference.
  2. WP:BATHWATER: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Even if you think the medals shouldn't be in the infobox, don't delete them. You may (after discussion) move them to a different section of the article, but just deleting them helps nobody and seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Having said that, I'll play. Say we do remove some of the sections from the medal table in the infoboxes.
  1. What sections will remain, and why those?
  2. What will the new medal section look like?
  3. Who will labor to transfer all medals from the infoboxes to the new section? For clearly, we do not want to lose any information, just to reorganize it. Keep in mind, there are currently more than 1,000 judoka articles. This won't be a small project. CLalgo (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
1) WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't apply here, as this is not a case of "similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page", but in all other pages. There is a difference. Still there is no deadline.
2) WP:BATHWATER: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Even if you think the medals shouldn't be in the infobox, don't delete them. You may (after discussion) move them to a different section of the article, but just deleting them helps nobody and seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Please stop ommitting facts. The medals removed are sourced in the article in question (in the prose) François Gauthier-Drapeau.
1) I think including medals on a continental basis and world basis is fine. The highest event in question. So for ex. in Judo that would be the World Championships / Olympics (at all age levels) and the Continental Championships/Continental Multi sport events. These would represent the highest level per category (world and continental).
2) Medals section should include those events only, I am not even sure what you mean by what they will look like.
3) Again there is no deadline, multiple editors can work to a common goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: Please, elaborate your points.

  1. "Still there is no deadline." — What do you mean?
  2. "Please stop ommitting facts. The medals removed are sourced in the article in question (in the prose) François Gauthier-Drapeau." — Again, I'm missing your point and what facts were ommited. What specific edit are you referring to (please, provide a diff) and in any case, why shouldn't medals be presented in an organized way on top of any prose?
  3. "I think including medals on a continental basis and world basis is fine. The highest event in question. So for ex. in Judo that would be the World Championships / Olympics (at all age levels) and the Continental Championships/Continental Multi sport events. These would represent the highest level per category (world and continental)." — I do not know what your level of understanding in judo is, but claiming that the continental championships are of higher level or importance than the Judo World Masters is absurd, as it awards 157% (!) more ranking points than the continental championships. Even the Grand Slams award 43% more ranking points the the continental championships, while some iterations of Games award none, as is the case for all Pan American Games.
  4. "Medals section should include those events only, I am not even sure what you mean by what they will look like." — This is an assertion, baseless and without a clear reason where to draw the line.
  5. "Again there is no deadline, multiple editors can work to a common goal." — That is true, but you are missing the point. Even if a project like this is lunched, AFTER a consensus is reached, medal wont be removed — but moved to a new, newly designed section. We are not here to remove relevant, sourced information. We may organize it differently, but removing it because "I don't like it HERE" is pure vandalism. CLalgo (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
1) There is no deadline to have this discussion or any implementation of what comes out of it.
2) You said I was blindly remove the grand slam section from the article in question, but that is not true (Ie ommitting facts). Each grand slam medal was sourced in the prose, where it should be.
3) I think you are confused or don't understand me. What I am trying to say is there is two types of competitions: World and Continental. For the world category: World Championships and Olympics are the top of the list, and for Continental that would be the continental championships. I think keeping the infobox as short as possible is important as per User:Lee Vilenski. The only reason I suggest continental multi=sport games is they are held every 4 years and won't clog up the infobox.
4) I am asking you what the section should look like.
5) I think they should be removed from the infobox entirely and sourced in the prose or a section in the prose. There is 0 reasoning to have World Series/Slam etc. events in the infobox imo. Please list why you think they should be included, keeping in mind no other sport lists regular World Series events in infoboxes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@Sportsfan 1234:
  1. There is no deadline to have this discussion or any implementation of what comes out of it. — That is true for every discussion. Lets leave this point.
  2. You said I was blindly remove the grand slam section from the article in question, but that is not true (Ie ommitting facts). Each grand slam medal was sourced in the prose, where it should be. — The fact that a medal is in the prose, which is good, doesn't mean it shouldn't appear in the medal table – if one exists.
    1. I think you are confused or don't understand me. — That is true.
    2. ...there is two types of competitions: World and Continental. For the world category: World Championships and Olympics are the top of the list, and for Continental that would be the continental championships. — Actually, the World Masters is an annual world class competition, considered of no lesser quality the the World Championships or the Olympic Games. The Grand Slams are also worldly events, ranked higher by the International Judo Federation then the continental championships that ranked on par with the Grand Prix, so I do understand you more now, but still think that if the continental medals are visualized, which they should, than the World Tour must too.
  4. I am asking you what the section should look like. — This is not an answer I can draw from the top of my head. It was your suggestion that one would be created instead of the current infobox medal table. My instinct says to build on the basis of something like Sagi Muki's Titles section. I like its order, sortability and available references. Maybe dates could be added too, and perhaps non-medal results, such as in tennis' Roger Federer Career statistics section.
    1. keeping in mind no other sport lists regular World Series events in infoboxes. — First, I do not know that. If anyone got a contradicting example, please link to it in a comment.
    2. I think they should be removed from the infobox entirely and sourced in the prose or a section in the prose. There is 0 reasoning to have World Series/Slam etc. events in the infobox imo. — Having information in prose doesn't mean it should be also organized in a table. This is true for tennis, as shown above, for other martial arts such as MMA, boxing, kickboxing and more that list the entire record of the athlete in a table and many other sports that list the subject's achievements in various competitions in table form. I'm willing to concede that maybe some medals shouldn't be in the heading infobox, but there is no reason what so ever not to have them – organized – somewhere else in the article.
Meanwhile, judoka articles should keep the current, common structure, until a different one will be agreed on. CLalgo (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Blimey, can we just calm down a little? It all boils down to if we think it's suitable to have medals won at international tournaments in the infobox. Personally, I try my best to shorten infoboxes wherever possible. They are in articles to give a short overview of key facts, and whilst this is certainly suitable for major things about a person, such as winning a world title, does winning a bronze in a continental championship really fit this? I'd be against having such events included in infoboxes, but am aware that we even have things such as the World Games in certain BLPs. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Grass as a surface in sports venues

A question about the linking of "grass" in sports contexts (mostly within infobox fields) is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox venue#Grass as a surface in sports venues. There are around a thousand articles affected. – Uanfala (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Baseball & Football

Should Federal League teams/records be in the 1914 Major League Baseball season & the 1915 Major League Baseball season pages? See RFC at WP:BASEBALL. Also are AFL teams included in the 1960 to 1969 NFL season pages? GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

When do school sports become notable?

This is a genuine question: I'm not into editing sports articles, but it's my understanding that sportspeople need good press coverage or achievements at quite a high level to be considered notable (appearing at the Olympics isn't enough, you need to win a medal). So I'm wondering whether the sport section of an article on a school such as Rice_Lake_High_School is sneaking through the sports barrier by being a school? Is the list of achievements in boys basketball in the Big Rivers Conference really notable? I don't know enough to judge, and would appreciate a more informed opinion. Elemimele (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sections within a page do not necessarily need to hold to the same standards as an entire article on the same subject. That being said, that's a rather large and somewhat-excessive list, so I'll convert it to prose and see if that helps. Primefac (talk) 10:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
High school sports teams and their achievement need to be summarised to include only the most noteworthy details, and it's very unlikely any non-notable individuals will warrant mention. We certainly should not be detailing almost everything, as was the case here before it was cleaned up. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Cork Junior A Hunting Championship

Any thoughts on 2021_Cork_Junior_A_Hurling_Championship and similar articles, going back to 2015? The championship itself seems to pass GNG, but I'm ambivalent on the suitability of individual year results. Ovinus (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The sixth tier in a county's competitions? Not remotely, for individual seasons. Ravenswing 21:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah okay. Bulk AfD is appropriate? Ovinus (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

1921 Cardinals NFL team

Would somebody (who knows better then I) fix the 1921 Racine Cardinals season page. It's in a state of confusion over whether it's the Racine Cardinals or the Chicago Cardinals. GoodDay (talk) 08:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Template: Start date and age

Howdy. Do we need Template:Start date and age added to the founding dates in the infoboxes of Sports team pages? GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see - NFL & MLS teams are using it, but NHL, MLB, NBA & CFL teams are not using it.

Sport results notability

I'm wondering if there is such a thing as a notability guide for sport results. I've noticed that most of the sports' individual events in the Paralympic Games haven't been done i.e. redlinked. If there's anybody who does sports results for other competitions, I'd like some advice or tips on what to do as I've only done sports pages for 2020 & 2024 Summer Paralympics but not done any specific event pages e.g. 100m sprint and 50m freestyle. Thanks. SarahTHunter (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Infobox guidelines

While working on lists of notable people connected to cities and schools, I have expanded sports biographical articles or at least taken them beyond the stub level. I have also created an infobox if needed. Several times, my infobox work has been criticized. For example, I didn't know that sports infoboxes are the one place in Wikipedia where abbreviation are standard, and I didn't know that minor league teams are not listed in the infobox. I am not a sports person, but want to get this right because so many that I come across need sources and cleanup. Where can I find the standard guidelines for sports infoboxes. And also, if their only pro team is in the minor leagues, does that mean their infobox is empty? What about players who are more famous for college play than the pros? Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

There's no one-size-fits-all across sports. With that, heck, anything can be criticized on Wikipedia. There's just no way to immunize yourself against that. Ravenswing 21:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If you need advice on sport infoboxes, this link would give you a little bit help. SarahTHunter (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games intro & infobox

Should we use just "city, country" for the intros & infoboxes of Year British Empire/British Empire and Commonwealth/British Commonwealth/Commonwealth Games (with the exception of the 2026 Games) pages? GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Over-capitalization of tournament article titles

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Over-capitalization, where we're talking mostly about college basketball tournament articles, but also a similar pattern in volleyball, soccer, and ice hockey; maybe a few others? Please join there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes

@2603:7000:2143:8500:1D57:F56F:F459:8F5E: has raised concerns about lack of info at the bottom of infoboxes, see 2017 Maccabiah Games as an example. Should we include or add the previous year & next year or not? GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't even know there are cases where edition number is used instead of the year. I think year numbers are more informative. "← 19th Maccabiah" is a weird choice in many reasons. Usually there is just a year number and an organizing city for multi-sport events. For 2019 European Games, there is "← Baku 2015" not "1st European". Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Brackets

I'm looking for some advice on how to use brackets for sport competitions' final rounds. Thanks SarahTHunter (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Notability of Country at Event articles

I came across a large amount of very stubby articles along the lines of <country> at <event>, such as Cambodia at the 1983 World Championships in Athletics and Upper Volta at the 1983 World Championships in Athletics. Do these fall under WP:NSPORTS or WP:NEVENT, and has there been any previous discussion about bright line rules for these types of articles? Ljleppan (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Itxia, who appears to have authored most (all?) of the ones I've noticed. Ljleppan (talk) 10:09, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Speaking entirely for myself, if I come across country pages like those with nothing more than stats and raw data, I generally redirect it to the <country> at <games> summary article, since the information is likely already collated there. I have done (but am less comfortable with) redirecting pages without an overview page to the relevant edition of the games. In this particular case, for example, you would lose which athletes competed (whereas if you had a Cambodia at the World Championships in Athletics they could still be listed there). Primefac (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I think for Multi-sports events at a level of the Pan American, Commonwealth, Asian or Olympics, will almost always be notable. Throughout my 9 years here, I have yet to have worked on an article of a country at x event without finding coverage for the above mentioned events. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
I would also agree with this; turning a page into a redirect might be okay in the short-term, but someone more(?) interested in the subject will likely be able to flesh it out to a suitable length. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
The truth is that I don't know if there has been any previous discussion about bright line rules for these types of articles.
What I do know is that <country> at 2022 (and 2019, 2017 and so on) World Athletics Championships articles are made for all countries. Why won't there be any of the first championships? My goal was to complete wikipedia with that data, but if there is no interest, I don't gain anything by doing it either.
Why should there be a United States at the 1983 World Championships in Athletics (not only that, there are 1980 and 1976 articles, when they are not even World Championships per se) but not an article about Benin at the 1983 World Championships in Athletics? I agree that if Benin, for example, has only sent one or two athletes to each World Championship, you could redirect all their articles to Benin at <games> summary article, when there is one.
And another thing I don't understand is that if links to all those articles appear in the {{Infobox country at games}} template, it's because there's an interest in their existence, right? Or we prefer to see them in red (only the old ones, of course, because the new ones are all in blue)?
Anyway, I will continue doing those articles, at least from the countries with the most athletes (it remains to be seen who decides what is the appropiate number of athletes to be worth have an article). If I see that it continues to cause problems, then I stop doing it. No problem.
PS: Sorry for my English. Itxia (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's a question of whether we should or not (I think we'd all agree the answer is "should"), but whether there is enough information. I raised a similar question at WT:OLYMPICS (permalink) about Haiti at the 1936 Summer Olympics, which at the time was a one-line stub. It's now an ITN candidate and looks pretty good!
In other words, by all means continue to create these pages - the more there are, the more interest will hopefully arise in filling out the rest and "turning redlinks blue". If a page is a redirect, such as the Cambodia page, think about why that was done - if there can be more information added, then it can likely be converted back into an article. If all that can be said is "XYZ country sent two athletes" then it might be more appropriate to save it for the summary/overview article. Primefac (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to expand on the first message here, my intent was not to make an accusation of these articles should not have been created, but a honest question w/r/t where they fall in the rather labyrinthine mess of various Wikipedia policies, guidelines and non-codified consensuses (I guess that's how one pluralizes consensus?). Ljleppan (talk) 10:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
I think there's too many of the "X at event Y" articles. Outside of the Olympics, most of them aren't going to be notable, or ever provide any more information than a couple of lines of text. e.g. not sure why Luxembourg at the 2022 World Games and Mongolia at the 2022 World Games exist, they had one athlete at a Games that's less well covered than the Olympics, so doubt they would actually pass WP:GNG. It seems there's a lot of recentism with these articles too, as they're created for every country for an event this year, but don't exist for the same event 20 years ago, for the notable countries i.e. the ones that had 100+ participants. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yea those are good examples of low quality articles. For the most part Pan Am Games, Asian Games, European Games and the Commonwealth Games will draw enough coverage for WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Marathon champion footers

Do we really need templates for winners of marathons that are not World Marathon Majors? There are 85 winners templates listed in Category:Marathon champions navigational boxes, and lots of them seem like winning those events is not a defining part of someone's career, and half the people listed on them are non-notable e.g. Template:Footer Istanbul Marathon Champions Men or Template:Footer Belgrade Marathon Champions Men. Is there a sports Wikiproject guideline for which of these should be kept or not, as I don't believe that many of these templates need to exist. And some people as a result have way too many marathon winners templates on their pages e.g. Eliud Kipchoge has 7 of the "X marathon - men's winners" templates, which would only be 4 if we only had them for World Marathon Majors. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Does a template wrapper solve half your issue? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The answer is no. Classic case of WP:TCREEP. See WP:NAVBOX. Although they are clearly defined group, the reality is that this sort of navbox generally fails item 2 there: "The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent." The people are not really related except in winning this particular event. The reality is that these are used for decorative purposes, not as "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." Nigej (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Paintball and Paintball Equipment

I noticed some articles (such as paintball equipment) had very few sources (and what was there wasn't great to say the least), and a bunch of what looks like advertising. Sections on equipment maintence and reusable paintballs got nuked entirely, and it looks like the promotional material had been in the article for over a decade. I removed some of it after confering with people on the discord, but I am not too versed in paintball (just found the article after looking up a trivia thing), so was wondering if it might be possible for others to also give articles about paintball a onceover as well? I plan to keep looking into it, but I figure the eyes of more experienced editors and some people who actually know stuff about paintball might be useful. OmniusM (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Airsoft Guns

Airsoft Guns seems to be in much the same state as paintball equipment above, and could prolly use some extra eyes, though I will try my best to improve the article as well with my very limited knowledge. OmniusM (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Edition number column of results summary table in sporting event article

Recently, I added edition number column in List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals as below.

  • Current version
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals
Season Winners Score Runners-up Venue Attend
Nation Team Nation Team
1955–56  ESP Real Madrid 4–3  FRA Reims Parc des Princes, Paris, France 38,239
1956–57  ESP Real Madrid 2–0  ITA Fiorentina Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid, Spain 124,000
2018–19  ENG Liverpool 2–0  ENG Tottenham Hotspur Metropolitano Stadium, Madrid, Spain 63,272
2019–20  GER Bayern Munich 1–0  FRA Paris Saint-Germain Estádio da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal


  • My version
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals
Edition Season Winners Score Runners-up Venue Attend
Nation Team Nation Team
1 1955–56  ESP Real Madrid 4–3  FRA Reims Parc des Princes, Paris, France 38,239
2 1956–57  ESP Real Madrid 2–0  ITA Fiorentina Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid, Spain 124,000
66 2018–19  ENG Liverpool 2–0  ENG Tottenham Hotspur Metropolitano Stadium, Madrid, Spain 63,272
67 2018–19  GER Bayern Munich 1–0  FRA Paris Saint-Germain Estádio da Luz, Lisbon, Portugal

But Some user reverted my version and discussed at talk page of the article]

But participants are few. So I would like to hear various sports article editor's opinions

1.

  • My opinion:

All results summary table in sporting event articles can have edition number column or competition order column.

  • Reason:

I think that edition information is a really basic information in all sporting competition articles, even if generally many people would not mention the edition information. If there is edition number column in all competition articles, This is very useful function.

Firstly We can intuitively recognize that the number of edition until now. Also We can intuitively recognize the many additional information.

For example, Which season is 20th or 30th anniversary season, Within 10th edition, Which team is most successful or Within 20th Edition, Which team is most successful and so on.

I am convinced of these functions and conveniences after check out List of Super Bowl champions and Copa América articles which have so many editions.

2.

  • Opposition's opinion:

Only some results summary table in sporting event articles can have edition number column or competition order column.

  • Reason:

Super Bowl or some competitions frequently mention edition number. So Super Bowl or some competitions can have Edition column or competitiion order column. But In some competitions like UEFA Champions League, generally press and fans would not mention something like "Chelsea won the 57th edition of the CL", but rather "Chelsea won the 2011/12 edition of the CL". So Results summary table in these competitions can't add edition column or competitiion order column.

3. Point vs Point:

  • My point: Edition number column or competition order column can provide convenience to readers. Please consider in terms of functionality in the table. I thinks convenience for readers is more important than mentioning of edition number or not.
  • Opposition's point: Mentioning of edition number in reality is more important than convenience for readers.

Footwiks (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose Unless reliable sources are often talking about the edition number (and not just when it's a round number eg, the 50th or the 100th), we shouldn't be including it. Clearly the Super Bowl is often referred to by the edition number and sometimes even the Olympics (eg Games of the XXXII Olympiad) but unless this is the case I can't see any justification for including it. Nigej (talk) 18:53, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose even in the above example the Superbowl is named by the event entry, rather than the edition being significant. It's incredibly rare for the event edition to be relevant and that's also not a reason to include. Saying in an article lede that the event is the 37th staging of the event is fine (if sourced), but hardly necessary for a table. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
    We can read the below phrase in 2022–23 UEFA Champions League and 2021 Copa América.
    The 2022–23 UEFA Champions League is the 68th season of Europe's premier club football tournament
    The 2021 Copa América was the 47th edition of the Copa América,
    Every association football season articles have upper phrase. Ordinal number of seasons or editions is also important information to association football competitions.
    You look misunderstood that Ordinal number of seasons or editions is only important information to American sports like Super Bowl and only American sports talking about ordinal number of seasons or editions.
    In your logic, Do we have to delete upper phrase in every associaition football season articles?
    Because reliable sources don't talking about the ordinal number of seasons or editions
    I don't understand your opinions. Every association football season articles have phrase about ordinal number of seasons or editions.
    So Just I added this ordinal number to the table for convenience.
    Why do only main article have ordinal number of seasons or edition information?
    I really can't understand it logically.
    I think that terminology Edition cause misunderstanding and confusion. Generally UEFA Champions League don't use terminology Edition. I know that and I don't adhere to terminology Edition.

As belows, # or Ordial number is OK in Every results summary table in sporting event articles

List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals
# Season Winners Score Runners-up Venue Attend
Nation Team Nation Team
1 1955–56  ESP Real Madrid 4–3  FRA Reims Parc des Princes, Paris, France 38,239
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals
Ordial
number 		Season Winners Score Runners-up Venue Attend
Nation Team Nation Team
1 1955–56  ESP Real Madrid 4–3  FRA Reims Parc des Princes, Paris, France 38,239

Footwiks (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand where you got the idea that we would delete prose? Why would we want this in a table? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
However, on that basis we could include many more pieces of information, eg the scorers, half time score, etc etc. A table like the one above should contain the most important information, there's no need for it to include everything. Seems to me that the edition number is one of the least useful/interesting things that could be added. Nigej (talk) 18:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
OK. Now just 60 seasons. So you can think that ordial number in the table is least useful information. Suppose that 100 seasons, 200 seasons in the future. Is Ordial number in the table still least useful information? Footwiks (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Even less useful. The reality is that people talk about the 1968 European Cup Final (or whatever) not the edition number. Its an obscure fact about the event, something that could perhaps be mentioned in the article but not useful in a general table about the competition. (Also see MOS:HASH) Nigej (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You're right! The reality is that generally people talk about the 1968 European Cup Final (or whatever) not the edition number. By the same token, Do we have to delet the prose - "The 2022–23 UEFA Champions League is the 68th season of Europe's premier club football tournament" in the main article?
Can you answer logically?
The reality is that generally people don't talk about 68th season for UEFA Champions League. But every season article of sports competitions have prose about ordinal number of seasons or editions information including UEFA Champions League.
Because ordinal number of competitions is basic information like human's age.
Many users in Wikipedia are conservative and only interested in keeping the current status. Some users contributed the article, But Some users immediately reverted and just commented "not needed" or not necessary. Therefore contribution become waste of time immediately.
If I delete the prose "The XXXX–XX UEFA Champions League is the XXth season of Europe's premier club football tournament" in the every main article, Probably some users will immediately revert. Footwiks (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Personally I'd be happy if it was deleted from the article. However you've failed to answer the question as why this stat should be included and not other ones (eg the half time score, the scorers, the referee, etc etc) which are often mentioned in reliable sources, while this one is hardly ever mentioned. Nigej (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

lots of information is pertainant to an event - as Nigej says, scorers, attendence, prize money for winning the event, broadcasters etc. These aren't all things you need to include in an table outlining the history of the event. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

National teams - naming conventions or not as the case may be

Is there a naming convention for national teams, specifically in terms of men's, women's etc. Some articles seem to be going for XXX national men's foobar team and XXX national women's foobar team whereas others are XXX national foobar team and XXX national women's foobar team with the implicit understanding that unless otherwise specified assume it's the men's team. Which is desirable? Nthep (talk) 11:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The convention is WP:COMMONNAME Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports/Archive_11&oldid=1133886095"