This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : * Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) * Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. * Sport in the United Kingdom - the Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Topcardi (talk·contribs) has brought to light the possibility that the IBSF rankings may be modified to remove nations 4th or greater entries from the list. Unfortunately there is not a source (yet) that validates this, but creates enough doubt that I thought it best to remove statements and italics that appear to convey definite knowledge of who qualifies next, but maybe there is a better way, I don't know. In adding information about possible African continental qualifiers I tried to limit the amount of weasel words, but hopefully communicated the real possibilites. It might even be better to remove the final four qualifiers from each table and indicate what continents are not qualfied yet and let the reader draw their own conclusions about who would fill those spots during reallocation.18abruce (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statement about having to be in the top 50/40 since this published results render it completely irrelevant. In the two man results (here) Argentina and Norway are indicated as still being eligible despite (after removing numerous sleds) they are still ranked 52 and 53. Providing a qualification rule that has no bearing, seems misleading.18abruce (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
did not remove any sleds, I meant the lists in the source (third column) have ARG and NOR still outside the top 50 despite removing many sleds from the rankings.18abruce (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I meant, which sleds did you remove from your calculations, but you pointed out IBSF did that already lol. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
