Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Sportspeople by century

I have proposed the deletion of Category:Alpine skiers by century, Category:Volleyball players by century, Category:Sports commentators by century and their sub-categories.

See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_9#Some_sportspeople_by_century, where your comments would be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Good show! --P64 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games WikiProject Proposal

I invite WikiProject Sports members to signup to support a Proposed Commonwealth Games WikiProject. The Commonwealth Games series of articles are much in need of attention. The first task of this project would be to standardise article, template and category naming and to format all existing results and medal tables using Template:MedalistTable and Template:RankedMedalTable for example. Additionally an audit of the results is needed - as an example many of the swimming results show mm:ss and should show mm:ss.00 in the time column. Add your support here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Commonwealth Games. Yboy83 (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Defenceman -> Defenseman

Defenceman has come up for renaming again, to the American spelling, again, see Talk:Defenceman

76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got mail?

Can somebody have a look at this? I'm getting an error message when I try to save the page (tho it appears to be saving properly; go figure), & I've gotten an "adding email" tag on my contributions history. (I have no idea where it came from...) Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

There are several e-mail addresses in the citation templates. The warning should be harmless, but they could be removed without real consequence. Powers ^T 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability for Olympic

If a sportsperson appears once in the Olympics for a minor country is that person notable on that basis? SunCreator (talk) 14:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Olympics is usually considered the highest-level amateur competition in any given sport (the exceptions being the sports in which professionals compete), so that qualifies under WP:ATHLETE. Professionals appearing in Olympic events are also generally notable, for the same reason, even if their professional qualifications alone wouldn't normally be enough. Powers ^T 15:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB Infoboxes

The NFL infobox and the similar MLB infobox are clearly the best of the four major infoboxes, but the NBA and NHL infoboxes are nothing like their NFL and MLB counterparts. Why not do away with the NBAretired like we are doing to the NFLretired and change both the NHL and NBA infoboxes to the current NFL format so instead of this

{{Infobox NBAretired
|image=
|position=[[Point guard]]
|number=30, 31
|birth_date={{birth date and age|1965|3|8}}
|debutyear=1987
|finalyear=1997
|draftyear=1987
|draftteam = [[Sacramento Kings]]
|draftround=1
|draftpick=6
|college=[[University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill|North Carolina]]
|teams=
*Sacramento Kings (1987–1990)
*[[Atlanta Hawks]] (1990)
*[[Houston Rockets]] (1990–1996)
*[[Detroit Pistons]] (1996)
*[[Orlando Magic]] (1996–1997)
*[[Denver Nuggets]] (1997)
|stat1label=[[Point (basketball)|Points]]
|stat1value=9,397
|stat2label=[[Assist (basketball)|Assists]]
|stat2value=4,073
|stat3label=[[Rebound (basketball)|Rebounds]]
|stat3value=1,454
|letter=s
|bbr=smithke01
|highlights=
*2x [[NBA Finals|NBA Champion]] ([[1994 NBA Finals|1994]], [[1995 NBA Finals|1995]])
*1988 [[NBA All-Rookie Team]]
|HOF_player=
}}

why not use the second infobox (NFL format) for both the active and retired players and get rid of the current NBA infobox and the NBAretired infobox, this way you don't have to keep switching infoboxes after a player retired (Excuse the NFL Draft, I'm just using it as an example)

The same goes for the dull NHL infobox. Why not change it the NFL infobox?

Members of the NFL, NHL, MLB and NBA wikiprojects should give their opinion on this issue. Beast from da East (talk) 03:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Kenny Smith

No. 30, 31
Position:	Point guard
Personal information
Born:	(1965-03-08) March 8, 1965 Rochester, New York
Career information
College:	University of North Carolina
NFL draft:	1987 / Round: 1 / Pick: 6
Career history
Sacramento Kings (1987–1990) Atlanta Hawks (1990) Houston Rockets (1990–1996) Detroit Pistons (1996) Orlando Magic (1996–1997) Denver Nuggets (1997)
Career highlights and awards
2x NBA Champion (1994, 1995) 1988 NBA All-Rookie Team
Career NFL statistics as of 1996–97
Points: 9,397 Assists: 4,073 Rebounds: 1,454

WikiProject Sports/Archive 6
Born	(1965-03-08) March 8, 1965 Rochester, New York, USA
Height	6 ft 3 in (191 cm)
Weight	170 lb (77 kg; 12 st 2 lb)
Position	Point guard
Played for	Sacramento Kings Atlanta Hawks Houston Rockets Detroit Pistons Orlando Magic Denver Nuggets College North Carolina
National team	United States
NHL draft	6th overall, 1987 Sacramento Kings
Playing career	1987–1997

Well one reason, is that most people think the NFL/MLB infoboxs are the worst of the infoboxes. They are giant eyesores. Secondly per colour, we are supposed to minimize the use of colours for decorative purposes. So some of these infoboxes depending on your opinion could be seen to violate that. Secondly different information is important in different sports. There is no point to standardizing infoboxes across completely different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well then maybe we don't need colors in the infoboxes, just leave it without them like the example above.Beast from da East (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

NHL Project members seem quite attached to their "dull" infobox. It must be admitted that it conveys the necessary information without clutter. =) In principle, I agree with you that it'd be nice to have all biographical infoboxes appear with consistent appearance (as I guess they do in the French Wikipedia?) but practically speaking, given the variety of information that different projects would want included, I don't think it's feasible. Powers ^T 21:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

And that is exactly the point, I find alot of the other boxes as being cluttered. Infoboxes are only supposed to have the most key information in them. The article is for more detail, things like statistics that you can find in some boxes are too much for an infobox and are better served just being in the articles. Now I am probably biased but I think our "dull" infobox is one of the best biographical infoboxes on the entire wiki, not just sports. Whereas the baseball one for example draws your eyes away from the article with its large use of colour and large amounts of clutter, which is a bad thing, an infobox shouldn't draw you away from the article itself. While I would love them all to be basically the same size and layout, I don't think it is practical. -DJSasso (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from NBA project - well, it is one's opinion that NFL and MLB infoboxs are better-looking than those of NBA and NHL. I certainly don't think so. Thus, I disagree with changing NBA infoboxs.—Chris!_c/t 23:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Re the NBA infoboxes: I don't have a strong opinion about the aesthetics, but I wouldn't mind simplifying things by combining the active and retired infoboxes. Zagalejo^^^ 23:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• If this is a proposal to make these infoboxes consistent, then I am oppose to that. Each sport is different, providing different sets of statistics, and thus should have their own unique requirements. {{Infobox football biography}}, {{Infobox cricketer biography}} and most of the other templates in Category:Sportsperson infobox templates each have their own unique styles too, and I doubt they also could fit into the NFL/MLB infobox format. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'd be entirely in favor of getting rid of the NBA retired and/or any other retired template. It's one less template to worry about, and it prevents ridiculous situations of having to change templates after a players' retirement. matt91486 (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why should those four leagues have a uniform infobox, but not other professional sports leagues? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Count me in the group that finds the MLB and NFL infoboxes to be atrocious. Vehemently oppose changing any other infobox to match those styles. Resolute 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is the NFL one the one on the bottom? It's horrible. --Smashville^talk 14:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Gets even worse when you add colour. As DJ said, those infoboxes pull your eyes right away from the article itself. Resolute 15:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blast! MY EYES! THE GOGGLES! THEY DO NOTHING! --Smashville^talk 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've added the NHL infobox for Kenny Smith, NBA player, as an example. Personally, I find jersey numbers to be useless. If for some reason, they are notable, then a passing mention can be made in the article. Stats probably aren't notable until a player has retired, and are probably tedious to update weekly like the NFL. Awards can start to clutter up notable players. Take a look at Michael Jordan. No one's going to read that mess, especially when there's an "Honours and awards" section. And of course, colours and stars can be quite annoying and/or detracting. Schmloof (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• I kind of like that example. In terms of aesthetics and maintenance, it's a lot better to just keep things simple. For the record, the articles for current NBA players don't include stats in the infoboxes; the stats are found towards the bottom of the article. But I'd like to get rid of active NBA player stats altogether, since the vast majority aren't updated regularly (and when IPs try to, they'll often update one or two fields without updating the rest of them, which results in a confusing mess.) If we had more people regularly editing NBA bios, it wouldn't be as much of a problem, but we don't, so it is. Zagalejo^^^ 20:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• We're actually quite fortunate that the IPs interested in hockey generally respect the messages asking people not to update during the season, and do a decent job of updating all players in the off season. Updating about 2000 players at the end of the year certainly is a lot of work. Resolute 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts articles

A large number of martial arts group articles have been nominated for deletion via PROD, see WP:PRODSUM for Feb 14

These include national sanctioning bodies recognized by international federations under the IOC. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Division 1/I/One

The page Division 1 treats Swedish football, and Division I relates to the NCAA.

There are many sports organizations that have a "Division 1" or "First Division", including Swedish Football Division 1, NCAA Division I, French Division 1, Thai Division 1 League, Cyprus Basketball Division 1, Scottish Football League First Division, Football League One, J-League 1, etc. I suggest that Division 1 and Division I should be moved to more explicit names, and a disambiguation page be created to sort them all out. Cnilep (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am open to a discussion of this, but you need to post a notice of this discussion on both Talk:Division 1 and Talk:Division I. Thanks. Powers ^T 14:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Done; thanks for the reminder. Cnilep (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm hear to talk about the article I currently write on, the Thai Division 1 League, simply put, this is what this league is known as. It is rather basic, but it is simply that. If it did have a different name, then i would simply chaneg it. Generally, most 2nd level leagues are known simply as B or 1 leagues. Druryfire (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I believe that Division I, with the roman numeral, almost always refers exclusively to the NCAA division. It's possible that Division 1 may need disambiguating, as I'm not familiar with those leagues at all. Powers ^T 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any need to rename Thai Division 1 League; that name is not ambiguous. On the other hand, given that its name, along with the names of many other leagues, includes Division 1, isn't reference simply to "Division 1" (without specifying Thai or Swedish or French football, or Cypriot basketball or what have you) potentially ambiguous? Cnilep (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion appears to be stale. I will propose moving Division 1 to 'Swedish football Division 1'. I will not propose moving Division I, per LtPowers' objection. Cnilep (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sorry to come late to the discussion, but a move to NCAA Division I is preferable. The distinction between a Roman and Arabic numeral is not enough in my mind to make "Division I" unambiguous. It also strikes me as a pretty US-centric view (which as an American I am allowed to say), that the undisambiguated "Division I" refers exclusively to US college sports. So, I believe Division I should be moved to NCAA Division I (and the same with DII and DIII) with Division I becoming a disambiguation page due to "Division I" being ambiguous and per WP:WORLDVIEW.oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Division I now redirects to Division 1, which is the disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus for that move, and I ask that you revert it. No one has yet come up with any case in which Division I refers to anything except the NCAA division. Powers ^T 12:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really care either way, but I don't think the difference between 1 and I is enough to leave the article as unambiguous. Clearly that is a plausible typo for any of the articles about subjects called Division 1. -DJSasso (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I should also note that with the new redirection, there are an awful lot of now-"ambiguous" links to Division I. Powers ^T 13:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Yeah those should have been cleaned up when he made the change. -DJSasso (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
          • I just saw the discussion if it could be called that and was just coming here to mention the numerous article links that have now been screwed up by moving the Division I, II and III pages. Of course the cleanup and repair of the dismabig links will most likely be left to others to fix. Appreciate that. Ugh! Geologik (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
            • As a result, I must ask again that this change be reverted. Or is Anthony no longer watching this discussion? Powers ^T 12:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
              • I think it may be too late to revert the changes as I've been correcting links and I've seen others doing the same thing. RussBot (talk · contribs · count) is also doing corrections at this moment. However, this fails to address the limited discussion and moves that have disrupted literally thousands of college, university, athletics, individual sport and season articles for these three divisions. These articles were pointing to the correct pages before this change and now it's a cluster of correctly pointing pages now pointing to the disambiguation pages. A change this large should have been posted at the Colleges and Univerities, College Basketball and College Football WikiProjects for more input and discussion. I'd ask for folks to consider carefully any changes of this magnitude in the future. Geologik (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• These move discussions were some of the many inconclusive discussions which I have seen; I felt that some sort of decision was needed. To me, as DJSasso wrote, arabic numeral '1' and Roman 'I' look very like each other in handwriting and some type fonts, and other numbers are also liable to be remembered as merely the number and not whether any given use of it is Roman or arabic or written as an ordinal. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a valid opinion, but it doesn't grant you license to substitute that opinion for consensus, which was certainly unsettled at best. And irrespective of all that, leaving the now-ambiguous links in place is inexcusable. Powers ^T 20:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have redirected Division I to Division I (NCAA), and in the top of Division I (NCAA) I have put a hatlink to Division 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Which is how it was before, except now there's a completely unnecessary disambiguation in the title. Powers ^T 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Except it is neccessary. Simply put, Roman vs Arabic numeral is insufficient disambiguation, as someone using the search box is just as likely to use the opposite one of what is officially in use. Or, in other words, someone searching for the NCAA division is just as likely to put in "1" instead of "I", as they may not realize the difference (remember, we're writtig for an audience who doesn't know about the subject.)oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, but that's what hatnotes are for. Disambiguation is only so we don't have article titles colliding; if we're going to send someone to Division I (NCAA) whenever they search for or are linked to Division I, then the "(NCAA)" part is entirely superfluous. Powers ^T 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I believe that "Division I" should point to the disambiguation page, and Anthony's more recent redirect was a mistake. That numerous links have to be changed should not disuade us from making Wikipedia more user friendly for those who come here to learn about a subject they are unfamiliar with. Indeed, that is the purpose of the site. oknazevad (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which to redirect 'Division I' to?

• I seem to be caught in a dispute whether to redirect Division I to Division I (NCAA) (as stated to be dominant meaning) or to Division 1 (as often typed in error for it). Likely very many things across the world have a first division, written in various ways. (Anything that chooses to have a Division I in the sense of coming after Division H and before Division J, should have expected the resulting confusion from people with reading the 'I' (eye) as '1' (one).) As regards making a decision, down the years I have seen many talk page discussions that rhubarbed on repetitively inconclusively for dozens of kilobytes until they are 2 or 3 times as long as the article that they were about. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• It should point to Division 1. Again, the use of a Roman numeral on its own is insufficient disambiguation.oknazevad (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree; no other organization listed in Division 1 is ever referred to with a roman numeral. Powers ^T 12:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
    • But it reads the same way, that is, a person says the same thing for both. And the ability to visually distinguish the two is weak, as well. Frankly, though, I see no good reason not to include NCAA, either before (which I actually prefer) or after the "Division I", as it only serves to give the unfamiliar reader (our target audience) more information. Wikipedia is writen for the readers, not the editors.oknazevad (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• It now points to Division 1. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I really wish users/editors would fix the links first, then change the redirect(s), so that readers aren't taken to the wrong page when clicking on a link. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC at Illinois High School Association

There is a request for comment at this article, covered by this project. Interested editors are invited to participate. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Amateur radio direction finding 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing topics

I've updated my list of missing sport topics - Skysmith (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Steve Baues in the athletes section is a misspelling. There is an article on Steve Bauer, Canadian cyclist. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - Skysmith (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2008–09, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Navigation templates on bio articles

I have been trying to get some feedback on whether I have captured the current prevailing thoughts navbox usage in athlete bios from major sports at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue. I have attempted to compare all the team sports that have lucrative professional leagues. If I am missing any I would appreciate it if you would point it out to me and if the presentation is incomplete, I would appreciate help filling it out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Game-by-game recaps

Has there been a previous consensus regarding game-by-game recaps in athlete articles? For example, here. Is it appropriate or unnecessary?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 13:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems absolutely unnecessary. — Timneu22 · talk 13:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No week by week would be pushing WP:NOT boundaries. -DJSasso (talk)

Yikes, Yes, Y!agree. --P64 (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The Paralympics Task Force Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! - ~~~

Bib (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

I have invited you to participate in this discussion either based on personal interaction or because you are one of the leading editors on the talk page of WP:MLB, WP:NFL, WP:NBA, WP:FOOTY, WP:CFB or WP:WPCBB. Please invite any other editors that you feel might be interested.

It has come to my attention that each of these projects has different policies on a lot of editorial issues. I perceive template policy inconsistency (TPI) in athlete biographies to be a great problem on wikipedia. Although the sports with highly developed and lucrative professional team sports leagues have a lot of common interest on wikipedia because the players, coaches, owners, host venues, and major competitions in these sports are generally notable on wikipedia, the template policy is widely varied and confusing to both the reader and the editor. In general, the TPI issue is handled pretty consistently by football, basketball and baseball. WP:HOCKEY totally disagrees with these sports and excludes most templates I have been considering. Soccer has a policy that seems to be somewhere in the middle. I am wondering if WP:SPORT should set a policy regarding templates that all of the major sports agree to implement in a consistent manner. Other sports would be free to adopt the policy as well. For the time being, I believe WP:HOCKEY should be excluded because their vehement disagreement with most of these TPI issues would ruin any chance to come to a common policy agreement. If you look over my TPI chart you will see that there are several considerations for a template policy. At first, I was going to propose my own thoughts for ratification (see the TPI talk page). However, I think it might be more likely to come to a consensus, if we just put each individual template type up for discussion and came to a consensus. I would think this could occur in three stages. Stage 1: editors from various sports agree to put template policy to a vote; Stage 2: we come to an agreement on the common template types to put up for a vote; Stage 3: we vote either allow, disallow, or merge content with another template on each type. Among the types that would be considered are as follows

1. MVPs (regular season, post season, and primary all-star competition)
2. Other major awards
3. International teams
4. Olympic teams
5. Championship teams
6. League statistical leaders
7. Professional draft templates
8. Sports franchise and University individual sport templates
9. All-league teams
10. Collegiate All-Americans
11. Decade and All-time league teams

For the sports high school level, college level and professional level template policies could be unified across sports. Below could you comment on whether you think most sports should come to an agreement on a common template policy.

Stage 1: Survey

Feel free to state your position on the idea of setting a uniform WP:SPORTS template policy *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', state which projects you primarily edit for, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support as nominator, on behalf of WP:NFL, WP:NBA, WP:CFB and WP:WPCBB, I feel it would benefit the reader to be able to know what to look for on all the relevant pages. I also feel it would benefit editors to know how to help each other refine templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support; I think consistency is very important to avoid conflicts and misinterpretations. I meet differences every day, as I edit for WP:CYC, WP:HOCKEY, WP:FOOTY and WP:HANDBALL (or edit handball articles at least). I started out editing for FOOTY, then got heavily engaged at CYC, before I later joined HOCKEY. And I must say that WP:HOCKEY is pretty Americanized and hard to influence, so this might be the right way to establish worldwide sports consistency. lil2mas (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I'm concerned, WP:FOOTY should be the yardstick here. It is by far the most actively collaborative of WP's sport projects in terms of talk page turnover; it is certainly odd to assert that it is following some "middle ground" between WP:HOCKEY (which is proudly and defiantly different for the sake of it, across the board) and the majority of the other examples at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue (which are almost all US sports). WP:FOOTY is IMO a WikiProject which prides itself on early and enthusiastic adoption of general WP consensus and policy, and its templates certainly follow that line. There is a perennial argument that a certain division is needed between US sports and global ones, which may need revisited, but that would require much more than a simple up-down on "unification" here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not clear whether you are saying yes there should be a uniform cross-sport policy, but it should be FOOTY's without further consideration or that there should not be a uniform cross-sport policy because the issue is complicated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned WP:FOOTY is doing the right thing already. I would support a uniform policy, but I do not see why this would require any change on behalf of WP:FOOTY (which IMO follows WP's template guidelines better than any other sports project at this point). The issue is only complicated in that, as you've documented, many US sports projects employ all sorts of navbox conventions not currently used by WP:FOOTY, and we need to discuss how that should be addressed (as it is evident that most US sports projects seem to think they're useful). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You are saying two things. 1: What FOOTY does is right. 2:US sports projects do something that they think is useful. You are still not saying whether you think there should be a uniform cross-sport policy consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support in general - I do think it is useful to make some Wikipedia-wide standards for sports templating. I think that would be a positive step forward. I'm not sure we have to even diffentiate "major sports". Sports championships are notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia. The various projects are capable of determining the notability, so we should not figure out another level of notability for 'major sports.' I'm not sure look and feel is also something that should be determined at the Sports level, except at some basic level, like generating base templates for all sports that can be overlaid with sport-specific content in some extensible way. I do like what is done on the French wikipedia to use icons. Something like that could be proposed at this level. Some will argue that the use of navboxes is overdone within the Wikipedia sports section. E.g., creating navboxes for magazine-determined awards is probably overdoing it. This must be respected in any step forward. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose what works for one project does not necessarily work for others. Not to mention that this proposal basically seeks to dramatically increase template clutter across all sporting projects. Resolute 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this were an attempt to coerce HOCKEY as you keep insisting that would be the case. It might be the case that fewer templates would exist for many projects if there were a uniform policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose in general I have no problem with an over all guideline, except that one of those options should be that there are none of these templates to begin with. But I also think that each project has its own needs for the subject matter they cover. Being that WP:EMBED, WP:NAVBOX, and by extension WP:ATC all suggest these sorts of templates should not exist at all. I think this discussion should probably focus on if they should exist or not exist, not on which ones to have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• agree - case in point, WP:HOCKEY has 2 sets of templates, one for NHL/ North American teams, and another for KHL and spreading to other European teams, following more in the steps of euro football (giving credence to WP:FOOTY, of course).--Львівське (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Having read through the arguments and counter-arguments below, I think that this issue isn't really as big a deal as the original nominator makes it out to be. Each sport has its own needs, and forcing each of these round pegs into the square hole of a universal template seems unneccesarily limiting. Furthermore, the US-centric nature of the proposal seems to ignore entirely the fact that top level team sports exist outside of its borders, and potentially creates more problems than it solves by implementing American sporting conventions on countries where those conventions do not exist. I think it's much better to allow each sport's individual project team to come up with their own templates, working within the framework provided by Wikipedia's sports template and navbox guidelines. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Each sport is different, and thus different approaches may be appropriate for different sports. And in some cases, a number of approaches are probably appropriate, but the editors working in various sports have different preferences, and as long as the approaches are appropriate, consistency is not essential. I am not actually sure what overriding necessity a drive for consistency accomplishes - all else being equal, consistency is better than inconsistency, but all else is not equal. Better to let the editors working in those sports use the approach they are comfortable with and that work for that particular sport, rather than force hockey editors, for example, to adopt the approach used for soccer. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:FOOTY member here. I don't mean to come across as dense, but I really don't understand what you're proposing. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing setting a world-wide cross-sport uniform template policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but templates for what? Uniform page layouts? Player articles? Team articles? League infoboxes? Competition infoboxes> You don't make it clear what templates you are talking about. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the link above for "template policy inconsistency ". It is about templates used at the bottom of athlete bios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the basic idea is to attempt to compel WP:HOCKEY to stop acting different for the sake of it; this is indeed highly desirable, but the proposal put forward is currently far too US-centric. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The goal is to let Hockey do what they do and get the rest of the sports world united under a common policy. If this can be achieved, then in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold. In what sense is it US-centric. If it is just omitted sports in the invite, I can address that. I guess, cricket might be a sport I forgot about, but I have attempted to contact the major sports that I am familiar with. I just forgot about them. In what other sense is this US-centric. Are their other sports with highly developed (lucrative and highly attended) team sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's US-centric in that only three of the twelve rows (tennis, gold, senior association football; ignoring the empty athletics column) are not predominantly US/North American sports. I hope that changes, but it's difficult to draw conclusions which aren't US-centric from the current table. And while I can see the strategy in trying to coerce the hockey project into conformity, in my experience that's not likely to happen while said project still insists that it can opt out of guidelines as it pleases based on nothing more than a head count. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to make any change to Hockey's usage. That would be fruitless and discussion of changing their policy will cause this to go no where. It is an attempt to get the other sports to coordinate policy better. Actually, I am not sure how tennis and golf fall into this policy because they are not team sports and don't share many of the issues with the invited groups to this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my question would be why do this? I've read encyclopedias all my life and in looking at a hardback copy right now I don't see consistency in their sports article bios. I find it kind of charming that there are differences in how they look and not cranked out like some robotic factory. I have not edited any hockey pages (mostly tennis) but nothing worries me more than the statement "in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold." I hear that type of statement all the time in California elections and it always comes back to haunt the people. The new law will only require a ticket for no seatbelt usage if they stop you for violating something else. A foot gets in the door and then another law is passed to ticket non usage no matter what. Cigarettes worked the same way with first restaurants, then bars, then parks and now they are trying beaches. I'm not saying those end results are good or bad but it makes me worry about the final ending here with regards to hockey or tennis (like world team tennis) once this passes muster with all the sports you are suggesting. Probably my only post here but I wanted to express my concerns and have it on record lest one day it attempts to gobble up tennis in some way that throws out the beauty of a well made page in favor of some fill in the blanks form. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there are concerns about a sport like tennis that is not really a team sport. Above, I have said that I am not sure where tennis and golf fall. Certainly the team aspect of tennis is of minor importance compared to true team sports. I am really trying to get the team sports (sports where the primary and most prestigious competitions that are yardsticks of the sport) are coordinated. Being a league MVP or first overall draft choice have similar importance across these sports. Surely, we could implement a policy that is intended for bios for team sports athletes without mussing up tennis. I think we all understand that world team tennis championship teams are not notable in the same way as World Series or Super Bowl championship teams. My problem when I look at a page is I can't scan different bios the same way. If I look at an American basketball player, I know if he was consensus all-American in college because that templating system is complete. The football system is incomplete so I don't know and baseball has no such templates so I really don't know. It is confusing. This means the same thing across these sports. I imagine being a tennis All-American is probably pretty similar as well. Tennis was not asked to take part because I think this consideration is best applied to similar sports with major professional sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that only American sports have things like college honors and league MVPs and overall draft choices, right? I think that's what an earlier poster said about it being USA-specific and not really having any relevance to sportspeople outside the United States. I don't think this whole exercise is going to have any kind of impact on soccer, because 99% of the soccer players with articles on this site aren't going to utilize any of the templates you're talking about anyway. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure there would be things that don't apply for leagues that have no draft. However, there would be several considerations for Major League Soccer, which is in America. Don't they have a draft? Also, I think both the MLS and Premier League would have a major consideration for a cross-sport policy involving annual league championship teams. I don't know much about soccer, but I would like to be able to look at the bottom of David Beckham, Zidane or Ronaldo and figure out if they were on any Premier League champions and who their team mates were. However, it may be the case that football guys convince others that this is not important. For me, I would like to be able to see this at a glance and it would be a discussion point of a cross-sport policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, all sports are different, so that they use different templates. But awards templates could easily be harmonized I think. It would be harder for squad templates.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is being on a Premier League Champion a lot less important than a World Series or Super Bowl champion? I sort of view it as the same because I read bits about the championship in the Wall Street Journal just like the American sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's no more or less important, but it's certainly different, and opens things up to a much wider scope than you may realize. The Super Bowl is the de-facto world championship, because with the exception of Canada, there are no other countries in the world which have a domestic American Football league. For soccer, however, there are premier league equivalents in well over 100 countries in the world. When you consider that most countries' domestic leagues go back 50 or more years, you're looking at at least 5,000 brand new templates, and that's just for domestic league competitions. When you add in domestic cup competitions like the F.A. Cup - which for some have equal weight as the leagues - plus continent-wide tournaments like the Champions League, the Europa League, the Copa Libertadores, the CONCACAF Champion's League, plus the Club World Cup... it's potentially enormous. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I may have the Premier League and the Champions League all mixed up. Basically, each sport knows which leagues are the highest level in their sport. The intent of a policy would be to have templates for the highest leagues in a sport. I don't believe that there are really 100 such leagues. It may be the case that their are 4 or 5 such leagues going as far down in importance as the MLS. It may be the case that I am misinterpreting what is out there. I don't know what CONCACAF is. Maybe you already have the templates that I think each sport would need to be uniform. I would not mind really if baseball added Japanese Baseball Championship templates as a policy issue. In all honesty, I think there must be a highest set of leagues. In hockey for example, most players play in the NHL and then when they get older some European players are still competitive in their own domestic leagues. However, I think most of these leagues are a cut below the NHL. I suspect soccer might be like that. I am sure a policy could be written broadly enough that it does not twist a specific sport's arm into producing unnecessary templates. The point is really do we want to be consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

JonBroxton, I have finally read up on my confusion and I was confused on Premier League and UEFA Champions League (and its sister the CONCACAF Champions League). I think what would be consistent with U.S. Sports is if the champion teams of these two tournaments (not all of the league champions) each had templates. Is WP:FOOTY against that? Has it been discussed before? Even if there is no official unification policy that would bring the global sports world aside from Hockey much closer to being consistent because that is the most significant difference between FOOTY and the other major sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally in favor of the navigation templates, but I do not believe that I speak for the general WP:FOOTY community in that. The WP:FOOTY community in large has been reducing templates, I believe, if I recall previous discussions accurately. matt91486 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing about FOOTY that differs from most sports is that there are so many international competitions that they have templates for. Thus a lot of good players get overloaded with those. I don't know what types of things have been getting reduced, but I also don't know which international competitions are truly the most important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you chose to canvass every project except the one that disagrees with you, (except a single individual on their talk page who was known to somewhat agree with you)? Which is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS? I am assuming it was an oversight and have done so for you. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was pursuing a policy agreement that does not include Hockey so I did not contact them as the matter does not concern them. You will note I have only contacted 6 projects and many sports in {{Team Sport}} have not been notified. Basically they are the 6 that have major team sports leagues almost exclusively based in the United States with which I am familiar. Admittedly, NHL is largely based in the US too and soccer has other major team sports leagues, but I think these are projects that have common interests and may come to a unified policy. I have no reason to believe hockey has an interest in a unified policy. It would be CANVASSING if the policy were intended to impact WP:HOCKEY and they were not contacted. However, this policy will not impact them if there is any agreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would impact us. If you create a standard that applies to every other team sport we will be forced into it applying to us as well because of consistancy issues. So instead of asking us to come and help with a consistent agreement you tried to cut us out of the loop so that you could develop a policy without us which would later be used to force us into agreement because "everyone else does it", which is evidenced by your comment "The goal is to let Hockey do what they do and get the rest of the sports world united under a common policy. If this can be achieved, then in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold". Which makes it clear your ultimate goal is to try and force us into line with what you want. Despite a guideline (WP:EMBED) suggesting templates should not be used for such things. As well as WP:NAVBOX which is an essay but is pretty much followed as a guideline.. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading my intent. I never intend to force HOCKEY to do anything. I was hoping to unify a policy in a way that would work well for other sports. I certainly hope "HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold" if a unified policy works out. This is different than forcing them to do what everyone else does. Pleas WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read AGF. It specifically mentions that you do not need to follow it when there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to bad faith. Which is clearly the case here. You ran out of good faith when you made personal attacks on an entire wikiproject calling the people in it the Hockey Mafia. Then proceeded to invite all the major team sports that are more likely to support you and ignored the one that is not likely to support you. Then instead of doing the conversation in the open on the WP:SPORTS talk page, you transcluded it to your own subpage so that no one following WP:SPORTS except those you hand picked would notice the discussion. Do you honestly think people are so dumb as to not see where you are headed with this? Give us some credit. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And made it a subpage of your own page and transcluded it so that when people edited it on the WP:SPORTS talk page, it wouldn't show up on peoples watch list. Seems you have gone out of your way to illegitimately influence the debate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made it a separate page to preserve a history without clutter from other subject matter. I have been working on this and related subpages for weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(I'm an active editor of CFB, HOCKEY, & FOOTY) Also, what's not been discussed is whether or not these types of templates should even exist in the first place. Per WP:NAVBOX: "For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{succession box}}. Variant templates for persons who have held several notable offices are discussed at Template talk:Succession box." So why should we have any navbox templates like {{Ballon d'Or recipients}}, {{Heisman Trophy}}, etc.? If you want to know who won those awards then you only have to go to each article's respective page, which ought to include a list of winners. HOCKEY is not being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian; WP policy is why HOCKEY has opposed navbox temps in that vein, much like we recently did at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 11#Template:Hobey Baker Award – much to the chagrin of this conversation's initiator – a discussion in which I did not take part, although I agree with the rationale. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he is portraying that WP:HOCKEY is disagreeing with a common standard, which is not the case. Our stance is that both WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED indicate that you should not be using templates for these sorts of things, so we are not being contrary for contrary sake, we are following what is already laid out. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was the idea behind this discussion: To first vote over having a discussion about this issue, then come to an agreement of which templates to include, and which to exclude, and then vote over the different proposals. If this was not the case, I have to alter my vote... lil2mas (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The original intent was a discussion of whether the major team sports that were invited wanted to 1. Unify policy, 2. agree on templates involved, 3. vote on said templates. This was intended to be part 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The first time you brought this up Tony, you left agreeing that projects were free to do as they please. It's frustrating that you have changed your tune and are now looking for ever more devious ways to bully other projects into your MLB/NFL way of thinking. To answer your questions as a representative of WP:HOCKEY: 1. No, I do not have any interest in unifying "policy". Let each project decide how it wishes. 2. Moot given the answer to question one. 3. Moot given the answer to question one. Resolute 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

^What he said. And the fact you transcluded this as a subpage of your own page? So, so shady... 93JC (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple weeks figuring what is going on across wikipedia in my own user space and just transcluded it. Nothing shady.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. There is nothing at all shady about canvassing only those most likely to support you as you attempt to write a "global policy" and transcluding the discussion to your sub page so that those who did not get an invite because they are most likely to oppose you are less likely to notice the discussion in their watchlists. Personally, I think the most comical highlight of your efforts was how the one hockey project regular that you did invite featured a thread title and invitation message that was deliberately non descriptive so as to obscure your intent. Resolute 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think calling this a "great problem" is exaggerating: I don't think any readers are failing to find relevant information based on differing approaches for navigation boxes. Given the differences between the cultures of different sports in different locales, personally I don't believe there is a strong need for a single policy across all of them. Suggested guidelines to help give a project some ideas of alternate mechanisms of navigation might be useful. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For example refer to Reggie Jackson and Oakland Athletics.

Is this all about that footer material between External links and Categories on these two pages? (Visit Reggie Jackson and "show" the "Links to related articles".) Or does it concern also the Infoboxes at top right, which may be called header material? --P64 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Reggie Jackson article paints a very impressive picture of just how bad the clutter is in the footer templates for the baseball project. You have both succession boxes and templates for awards. You have lists of teammates in some seasons but not others (winning a championship is notable, teammates are not). You have a retired number template that is completely redundant to the retired number section of the team templates. You have team templates that act as history of lists rather than navboxes. Additionally, they are riddled with POV and redundant entries. You have three separate templates noting that Jackson is in the Hall of Fame. And you end with a template that links completely unrelated teams and individuals together by the non-defining trait of being part of a city's Hall of Fame. I'd look at that and describe it as being an unparalleled mess. Resolute 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jumpers, by the time a clean shaven fella got through reading all of those things (at Jackson's article), he would get up to leave & suddenly trip over his white beard. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat.

Is this all about footer templates? For example, visit Reggie Jackson; scroll down to External links and Categories; "show" the "Links to related articles".

Or is this also about header templates? At Reggie Jackson, see the box displayed at top right. It begins with his name. --P64 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony was refering to the Navbox footers and not the infobox templates, yes. Resolute 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

List of Professional sports leagues

This article is confusing. I changed some that i knew not to be fully-professional, then when i read clearly what someone had written at the top, it basically says that, if the players get paid then it's professional. I didn't realise at first that the list included semi-professional leagues aswell. There's also Cups included incuded on the list, even though it's titled as 'leagues'. Bobbymozza (Bobbymozza) 22:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

GAA proposed move

I've proposed that [[GAA]] be a disambiguation page rather than point to 'Gaelic Athletic Association.' As GAA is commonly used in ice hockey and other sports, I welcome project participant opinions at Talk:GAA (disambiguation). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Central American and Caribbean Games

Hi, I wanted to bring to the attention of this WikiProject the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games Article. The games will be held in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, from July 17, 2010 to August 1, 2010. There is lots to be done, especially related to the following red linked articles; please see if you can contribute in any way:

Sports

• Archery
• Artistic gymnastics
• Athletics
• Badminton
• Baseball
• Basketball
• Baech volleyball
• Bowling
• Boxing
• Diving
• Equestrian
• Fencing
• Field hockey

• Association football
• Team handball
• Judo
• Karate
• Canoeing
• Cycling
• Modern pentathlon
• Racquetball
• Rhythmic gymnastics
• Roller skating
• Rowing
• Sailing
• Shooting

• Softball
• Swimming
• Synchronused swimming
• Squash
• Table tennis
• Taekwondo
• Tennis
• Triathlon
• Volleyball
• Water Polo
• Water skiing
• Weightlifting
• Wrestling

not much can be done here since the games have not started but at least the article can be started; El Johnson (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

South Korea/Korea Republic

I know this isnt a big problem, but Im requesting that either South Korea or Korea Republic be picked and used consistently through out the sports section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crictv69 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We use whichever the appropriate governing authority for the even uses. For example, in FIFA-related articles, we use "Korea Republic", because that's what FIFA uses to refer to the country. It's an unambiguous, neutral standard. oknazevad (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (PS, sign your posts.)

Keeping sports stats up-to-date

I’m the founder and CEO of StatSheet, Inc. (http://statsheet.com), a sports media company that specializes in making sports stats easy to integrate across the web.

There are thousands of sports pages on wikipedia that get out of date quickly because the articles contain sports stats related to a team or player.

Would you have any interest in StatSheet providing a service to Wikipedia contributors that allowed them to embed a snippet of Javascript, which updated those stats/standings/etc in real-time? The embedded content could look like it is part of the page — not an outside add-on.

We have a service called Embed StatSheet that does exactly this: http://embed.statsheet.com

Look at the football standings table on the following page to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_A%26M#Athletics

Robbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieStats (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports pictures de facto banned as Featured Pictures?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Categories_of_nominations_that_are_defacto_banned that may interest you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities Included on Club/Team Pages

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

It has become a rather large debate at Wikiproject Baseball concerning the use of flag icons within the roster infoboxes for sports pages. The editors at Wikiproject Baseball seem to assert that the use of these flag icons is a violation of accessibility standards. If this is accurate, then it would be necessary to remove flag icons from all sports pages (football ["soccer"], hockey, basketball, etc.). However, if this is not accurate, then it would probably warrant the implementation of flag icons on baseball rosters as well. The conundrum is whether or not it is a violation of the aforementioned accessibility standards or MOS:FLAG. I came here to see what your rationale was for implementing them on the club/team pages for the aforementioned sports. Thank you.--Yuristache (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its only a violation if you don't express the same information in another format. For example on hockey rosters we list the place of birth, so those that can't access the flags still have the same information as those that can. But I would note that both the pages you link to are guidelines and not policy. So they technically can't be violated as they are just good practice in most cases, but not necessarily all. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Paralympics Task Force Invitation!

	You are cordially invited to join the Paralympics Task Force!
	You appear to be someone that may be interested in joining the Paralympics Task Force. Please accept this formal invitation from a current member of the project. We offer a place for you to connect with users who also like the Paralympic Games and facilitate team work in the development of Paralympic Games articles.
	If you decide to join the project, please add your name to this list.
	I hope you accept! - ~~~

Bib (talk) 08:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

List of Professional sports leagues

This article is confusing. I changed some that i knew not to be fully-professional, then when i read clearly what someone had written at the top, it basically says that, if the players get paid then it's professional. I didn't realise at first that the list included semi-professional leagues aswell. There's also Cups included incuded on the list, even though it's titled as 'leagues'. Bobbymozza (Bobbymozza) 22:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

GAA proposed move

I've proposed that [[GAA]] be a disambiguation page rather than point to 'Gaelic Athletic Association.' As GAA is commonly used in ice hockey and other sports, I welcome project participant opinions at Talk:GAA (disambiguation). ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Central American and Caribbean Games

Hi, I wanted to bring to the attention of this WikiProject the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games Article. The games will be held in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, from July 17, 2010 to August 1, 2010. There is lots to be done, especially related to the following red linked articles; please see if you can contribute in any way:

Sports

• Archery
• Artistic gymnastics
• Athletics
• Badminton
• Baseball
• Basketball
• Baech volleyball
• Bowling
• Boxing
• Diving
• Equestrian
• Fencing
• Field hockey

• Association football
• Team handball
• Judo
• Karate
• Canoeing
• Cycling
• Modern pentathlon
• Racquetball
• Rhythmic gymnastics
• Roller skating
• Rowing
• Sailing
• Shooting

• Softball
• Swimming
• Synchronused swimming
• Squash
• Table tennis
• Taekwondo
• Tennis
• Triathlon
• Volleyball
• Water Polo
• Water skiing
• Weightlifting
• Wrestling

not much can be done here since the games have not started but at least the article can be started; El Johnson (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

South Korea/Korea Republic

I know this isnt a big problem, but Im requesting that either South Korea or Korea Republic be picked and used consistently through out the sports section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crictv69 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

We use whichever the appropriate governing authority for the even uses. For example, in FIFA-related articles, we use "Korea Republic", because that's what FIFA uses to refer to the country. It's an unambiguous, neutral standard. oknazevad (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (PS, sign your posts.)

Keeping sports stats up-to-date

I’m the founder and CEO of StatSheet, Inc. (http://statsheet.com), a sports media company that specializes in making sports stats easy to integrate across the web.

There are thousands of sports pages on wikipedia that get out of date quickly because the articles contain sports stats related to a team or player.

Would you have any interest in StatSheet providing a service to Wikipedia contributors that allowed them to embed a snippet of Javascript, which updated those stats/standings/etc in real-time? The embedded content could look like it is part of the page — not an outside add-on.

We have a service called Embed StatSheet that does exactly this: http://embed.statsheet.com

Look at the football standings table on the following page to get an idea of what I'm talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_A%26M#Athletics

Robbie —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieStats (talk • contribs) 10:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sports pictures de facto banned as Featured Pictures?

There is a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#Categories_of_nominations_that_are_defacto_banned that may interest you. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities Included on Club/Team Pages

Main page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball § Nationality of Players

It has become a rather large debate at Wikiproject Baseball concerning the use of flag icons within the roster infoboxes for sports pages. The editors at Wikiproject Baseball seem to assert that the use of these flag icons is a violation of accessibility standards. If this is accurate, then it would be necessary to remove flag icons from all sports pages (football ["soccer"], hockey, basketball, etc.). However, if this is not accurate, then it would probably warrant the implementation of flag icons on baseball rosters as well. The conundrum is whether or not it is a violation of the aforementioned accessibility standards or MOS:FLAG. I came here to see what your rationale was for implementing them on the club/team pages for the aforementioned sports. Thank you.--Yuristache (talk) 23:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Its only a violation if you don't express the same information in another format. For example on hockey rosters we list the place of birth, so those that can't access the flags still have the same information as those that can. But I would note that both the pages you link to are guidelines and not policy. So they technically can't be violated as they are just good practice in most cases, but not necessarily all. -DJSasso (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The currency of "current squads"

Your attention is drawn to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Current squad. Uncle G (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Category for beach sports

Hi. I was wondering what sports have beach variants and there isn't a category about them. What about a new Category:Beach sports, which would include:

• Beach handball
• Beach polo
• Beach rugby
• Beach soccer
• Beach tennis
• Beach volleyball

and possibly also

• Footvolley

and others. What do you think? --Angus (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This sounds very sensible to me. TheGrappler (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Request

Could somebody here have a look at Brendan Stote? The background is that the article's creator (whom I suspect but cannot yet prove to be Brendan himself) repeatedly removes any attempt to tag the article for any sort of maintenance or cleanup whatsoever (even {{wikify}} and {{uncat}}), so I've had to protect the page. However, the larger issue is that I'm not entirely convinced that he's notable enough to be here in the first place; I'm not familiar enough with the sport of weightlifting to know whether the claim actually constitutes genuine notability, or is just an exaggerated portrayal of a minor and unencyclopedic distinction — is the "International Powerlifting Association" (not the International Powerlifting Federation) even notable enough to have its titleholders recognized internationally as true "world record" holders? So could somebody have a gander at it and let me know if he even belongs here in the first place? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

New article: Twackle

I've added Twackle (with help from the nice folks at AFC). Twackle is a sports-oriented Twitter aggregator and so looks like it might be of interest to this project --Dmh (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Amateur Athletic Union

Would someone take a look at Amateur Athletic Union, please? I know nothing about the topic. Two users who have only edited this article,[1][2] are, over time, removing the infobox, removing content, page/section blanking and removing negative information. I have reverted on a couple of occasions but it may be that some of the information ought to be removed. However, both users have also added information which seems appropriate to me. At present the logo file File:AAU 20USA 20Logo.gif has been flagged for deletion (again) because it is non-free and orphaned. Thincat (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Throughout 2010, many Wikipedia editors have worked hard to halve the number of unreferenced biographical articles (UBLPs) from more than 52,000 in January to under 26,000 now. The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons has assisted in many ways, including helping to setup a bot, which runs daily, compiling lists of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

A huge list of sportspeople can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games/Unreferenced BLPs. A more useful page is Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/UBLPs by sport, which lists all of the UBLPs by each of their relevant sports/games related WikiProject, and a few at the bottom of the list that don't have a project use categories. Currently there are over 6000 sports-related articles to be referenced or deleted. Other project lists can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects. To make your own lists, you can also use the WP:CatScan tool, which compares two categories. For example, this search will generate a list of the 29 unreferenced Canadian figure skater articles.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. We've done a lot, but we still have a long way to go. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sports articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Sports articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Clean-up 2003 Afro-Asian Games

The article 2003 Afro-Asian Games is currently a GA, although I think some clean-up has to be done so that it will be truly fitting of such status. The infobox is rather big, pompous even, and too many images are lined up to the right (needs to be spread evenly). At the same time, the calendar is faulty. The information certainly looks well-referenced and fine, although the overall presentation of the article should be better. I'm not sure of a more appropriate place to raise this, so here I am here :) Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 08:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

proposal: WikiProject Commonwealth Games

FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject for Commonwealth Games, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Commonwealth Games. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed creation of WikiProject Multi-sport events

As I was looking through the proposal for a WikiProject Commonwealth Games, it struck in my mind that a WikiProject coordinating all the articles on multi-sport events would be a better idea. As you can see here and here, there are numerous multi-sports events in existence today, not to count a few I know of that isn't in those lists. Many of these articles are in a sorrowful state, with no direct coverage by any WikiProject (WikiProject Sports is too broad). The Commonwealth Games can be a task force under this WikiProject. As for WikiProject Olympics — it certainly is significant enough to stand on its own. It'll just be related to the new WikiProject. Any comments/support? I am willing to develop the WikiProject, if its approved. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update Following the proposal at WikiProject Council, the WikiProject has now been set up (here). We are seeking more participants; if you are able to and wish to commit, you can always sign up at the project page! Thank you. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 15:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC Talk:Football#RFC:_Association_football

The question being ask is Should football be WP:DAB'd for all codes when the code is first mentioned in the intro? Gnevin (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Commonwealth Games

We're missing an Events at the 2010 Commonwealth Games overview article that summarizes the sports events into an easy to read single article. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Olympics seem to have a day by day article to serve that purpose... 76.66.200.95 (talk) 12:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates

At this time, the list at Wikipedia:Database reports/Unused templates includes many templates related to sports.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:yyyy Major League Baseball season

It has been suggested (in the CfD review for Category:2010 in California and Category:2010 in Texas) that the Category:yyyy Major League Baseball season (such as Category:2010 Major League Baseball season) be included in Category:yyyy in American sports (specifically, Category:2010 in American sports) where such a category exists. As the MLB extends to Canada, I think this may require consensus of the project.

I further think that more of the "year in American Sports" categories should be created, even if empty, as part of a pattern. For example, Category:1900 in American football should probably be in the not yet created Category:1900 in American sports.

I'm not active in this project, so I'd like to hear some advice before attempting to implement this. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would only put the individual articles for the American teams in that category instead of putting the category itself in. Since as you mention Toronto isn't an American city. -DJSasso (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The immediate issue is that 2010 World Series should be somewhere in a child of Category:2010 in American sports, rather than its "present" placement in Category:2010 in California and Category:2010 in Texas. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I would just put that directly into Category:2010 in American sports and leave it in those other two. Since those other two are likely to be deleted I would just put the world series article directly into the sports cat. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bandy World Championship 1997

Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header — and several other articles of the same kind concerning different years — has been without sources since October 2006 and might be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help find one or two good references for this and the others. To see all of them just click on the link in this message and scroll down to "B." Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Field Hockey - {{fh start}} & {{fh end}}

Hi folks, the templates {{fh start}} & {{fh end}} which are used to nest the footer navboxes in articles were originally derived from the equivalent templates {{fb start}} & {{fb end}} used in football articles. The folks over at the football project have bitten the bullet and converted over their templates to be full width and to not require the use of these templates. You can see the discussion on this here. They are nearing the end of the process of removing the many usages of the templates at the moment. Some of the field hockey articles tagged for this project use the football templates, these could be changed to use the field hockey templates, but it would be good for consistency for your project to follow the lead of the football people and eliminate the use of these templates. Any comments? Keith D (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Semi-professional football

I've put up a discussion on semi-pro football at Wikipedia:WikiProject American football/Semi-professional football discussion. You are invited to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to join the College Football Hall of Fame Cleanup Drive

Hello! The Wikipedia College Football Project invites you to participate in the 2011 College Football Hall of Fame cleanup drive. We are seeking to improve the quality of articles related to the College Football Hall of Fame and ask for assistance from not only sports enthusiasts, but also anyone interested in academics, biographies, and history (to simply name a few). Working together, we can make Wikipedia even better! (talk) 13:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

DRIVE COMPLETED Thank you, the cleanup drive is completed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Result not available

Template:Result not available has been nominated for deletion. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal

There is a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/NAIA to create a related WikiProject. Please consider reading the proposal and commenting at that page. Alternatives include joining an existing related project (such as this one) or creating a WP:TASKFORCE under a related project with a larger scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Vancouver Grizzlies

There is a discussion that has been started at Talk:Vancouver Grizzlies which may be of interest to WP:SPORT. Dolovis (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Linking to a teams particular season

Would it not prudent to have teams that are listed by year anyway (For example: List of Football Champions), have the link provided go to the year in which that feat was accomplished? Sure would help the reader understand more about that particular team.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article Review of Association Football

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. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Notability for Whitewater Sports

A discussion has started on the notability for whitewater sports at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Whitewater Sports, and input from members of WikiProject Sports would be valuable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Project or task force that looks after sport for disabled athletes as a whole?

Which Wikiproject or task force covers sports for disabled athletes? I've just done some cleanup of European wheelchair basketball championship. I've added it to the Basketball and Disability Wikiprojects, are there any others I should include? The Disability project is really too generic and I'm afraid the Basketball project is so focussed on the American NBA and has little interest in wheelchair basketball, that this article will get very little attention from knowlegable editors. I can't find a project or task force that looks after disability sports as a whole. There is a Paralympics Task force under the Olympics WikiProject but this article doesn't fit there. Roger (talk) 12:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Knockout tournaments - group table format

Hello. For a knockout tournament, when one or more teams can qualify from a group to the next stage, the teams that qualify are highlighted in green. Is there guidance on what shading should be used for teams that can not qualify/eliminated? Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 19:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Games Biographies and people in categories

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Biographies and people in categories

I am hoping to build guidelines for notability criteria for what makes someone notable in the games field i.e. Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Curling. Especially games players that I feel needs to have a section similar to the sports and athletes. An example of a question that has just arisen is does winning the first scrabble world championship count as just WP:Oneevent. Combined contribution issues also need defining.

The other conversation is do we want to have category inclusion criteria does a certain threshold need to be met before we add someone to Category:Chess players. Should Ben Afleck count as a poker player?Tetron76 (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The degree of chess-people categorization should grow with the number and variety of chess-people articles (all articles that will be in some chess category). The baseball project may go too far (see Category: Baseball people), but the zillions of baseball-people articles clearly warrant a high degree of categorization. Momentarily the top category includes only one biography, a stube created this week, perhaps by an editor who doesn't know the category scheme.

It's reasonable to classify along one or two dimensions, eg competitive achievements and nationalities, and use the top category for the members of some latent classes until there are several of them to classify, eg fictional players and prominent amateurs. --P64 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

US President Dwight Eisenhower is in Category: World Golf Hall of Fame inductees. Otherwise it would be reasonable to put him in the top category Golfers, which now includes only one biography.

Frank Merriwell is not in any sportsperson category, which seems wrong to me. Charlie Brown is in Category: Fictional baseball players, a category I consider warranted only by numbers.--P64 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball GA

The article on Netball was recently nominated for GA review: see Talk:Netball/GA1. The nominator (User:LauraHale) has never done a GA nomination before, and the review process has been rather excessive. While the reviewer has brought up some valid concerns, it seems to the nominator and to a few third parties including myself that the list of problems has become sort of like a Whack-a-Mole type situation with what some believe to be increasingly tendentious objections. Due to this, the relationship between the reviewer and the regular editors of the article has become quite strained. This has also become an issue as the reviewer has an ongoing RfC/U investigation open.

I've posted here primarily because I'm not sure where to turn (I've been asked to review it again if it were to be withdrawn/failed but, although played mixed gender netball as a wee lad at primary school, my knowledge of sports and netball in particular isn't enough for me to do a GA review of the article–I'm mostly here to edit on philosophy and religion). This seems to straddle behavioral and content dispute. It would be quite helpful if some uninvolved editors who have done GA reviews on sports-related articles could have a look and advise on Talk:Netball regarding the way forward for this article. I can think of quite a number of things including the WP:CNB, pushing for a WP:PR and opening up an RfC on whether there could be some kind of GAN co-ordinator. But if the dispute can be solved by editors in the sports area and a mutually satisfying and reasonable agreement made between the nominator, the editors, the Netball WikiProject members and the reviewers, that would be better than either having to do POINTy tricks or appeal to noticeboards, run RfC's or other bureaucratic stuff. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wanted to comment to support this. I really want to improve the Netball article. I want it to be an unbiased, factually accurate description of the sport and comparable to other articles. I would like it to get good article status and eventually featured article status. To that end, I helped fix all the citation issues in the article that I found when I first started contributing to it. I tried to expand on some sections. As the game is known more for its participation and its popularity in Commonwealth countries (and not as popular in the USA and in Europe), I wanted to provide a perspective on the game that would differ than say baseball and association football. I also wanted to make sure the article was clear that this was a female participation sport administers in schools, and its level of integration into a country's sporting culture differed by country.

This is the first article that I've made substantial contributions to. Before I nominated the article, I made sure another person in the project was aware of my goals (Good Article and eventually featured status.) I pretty much read every article I could about getting good article status. Offline and on IRC, I asked several people if they thought the article was at the point where it was ready to be nominated after substantial edits were made. They indicated to me that there may be some small issues but it should pass with some revisions.

The current process has become a bit of a saga. A lot of this started to kick off when the GA1 implied that we made the game appear more popular than it was, and then were told to cut sections about various countries that demonstrated the reach of the game. Where possible though, I and other editors to the article tried to comply with the request for changes to pass... but I felt we couldn't demonstrate the game's popularity with out the sections on the countries, sections we were being asked to totally remove. It went down hill from there. We were asked to compare the game to basketball. We were told we could not say the game was Olympic-recognised. I was asked to scan and e-mail copies of my sources to the reviewer and there were accusations of inappropriate paraphrasing that the reviewer could not prove. The review wanted us to describe the game as women's netball and repeatedly gender the sport so people would know who was involved with the sport. (Men weren't even officially allowed to play the game for a long time and they still aren't really recognised by the governing body for the sport.) We were asked to put in a section on the history of switching from imperial to metric measurements after the reviewer had said we should switch to imperial per consensus on the talk page. (The consensus was actually for imperial.)

I feel like there are now a number of issues with the article that need to be addressed. I'd love to move forward and for the article quality to be high but I'm not certain how to do that. We're at a stalemate because I can't work with the reviewer. (I personally cannot get past what I see as an accusation of plagiarism. I'm a PhD student in sport studies. If I thought the accusations had merit, I would be deeply mortified and would probably withdraw from contributing because my continued contribution would be detrimental to the article. I also understand the severity of this accusation. It could get me kicked out of university. These things make it difficult for me to move past this accusation.) I don't know how to move forward. The reviewer has re-opened my withdraw twice. I don't know what to do and would really appreciate advice on how to handle this situation more effectively in the best interests of the article. --LauraHale (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just came across this discussion and regret that I was not given timely notice of it. The true facts are clear to anyone who reads Talk:Netball/GA1.

Wikipedia's coverage of universities suffer from WP:BOOSTERISM which arises because most of the people editing a school's article are somehow affiliated with the subject school. The same problem can happen with sports articles. That is, a netball enthusiast is more likely to edit the Netball article and may try to puff up the sport. Similarly, an article about a sport in a particular country may try to claim that "the national team is prominent on the global stage." Inexperienced editors are more prone to such mistakes than are experienced editors who can quickly spot WP:words to watch. For example, until just recently, the articles claimed that netball is a full "Olympic sport", when it is clearly not. The netball articles (many of which are less than a month old) need a lot of work and volunteers without an emotional stake in netball are needed to scrub the puffing and glorification. Wikipedia reports just the facts, not the editorial puffing. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the situation, and while I concur that the articles did need a lot of work to bring them up to GA standard (which is fine), the unusually combative tone taken by the reviewers is to my mind counterproductive and inexplicable. Re-opening a review withdrawn in good faith by the nominator in particular, seems vexatious and just spoiling for a fight. Likewise, accusations of plagiarism are troubling; there are quite serious allegations being put up, with no serious evidence being put forward to substantiate that. Also, the demands for online references (via Google Books/Scholar) are over the top - this is not the normal operating procedure and there is plenty of history that a simple citation to the book and page number is sufficient. If a reviewer wants to check the references themselves that is their business, but otherwise they should assume good faith on that point. (I should note that I also find it implausible that a serious researcher like Laura Hale would deliberately engage in sloppy plagiarism).

My suggestion here is that the editors in question disengage from this GA review and from User:LauraHale for now, and that GA editors need to conclude their reviews in a timely manner, and if they have any concerns about an article need to provide solid details of what the problems are rather than vague assertions that there might be problems. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC).

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Women's sport wikiproject

I have proposed that we create a WikiProject devoted to Women's sport: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

division, conference, league, association

Division (sport), Athletic conference, Sports league, League system

What is to be done? Wikipedia is not a dictionary, I know. --P64 (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(no recommendation yet) Professional sports league organization makes 'league' one preferred general term. That article gets a lot more attention than Sports league, League system, etc. I have posted a slightly longer list of wikilinks to its talkpage, Talk: Professional sports league organization#League by any other name. --P64 (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Football in the United States

The usage of Football in the United States is under discussion, see Talk:Football in the United States

65.93.12.101 (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

discussion involving move of Perfect game

There is a discussion at Talk:Perfect game (baseball) regarding making the baseball usage the primary term, as opposed to the dab page. You may wish to comment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kickboxing reactivation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kickboxing is currently inactive. I would like to make some improvements to its outdated guidelines but I dare not since I am not an expert at kickboxing and I believe that there needs to be a consensus for that anyway. For that, I have contacted the last active members of that project but I still haven't received any answer. I would like to discuss here if anyone would be interested in reactivating that WikiProject or if it would be better to integrate it to WP:WPMA or perhaps WP:MMA. Jfgslo (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Substitution (sport)

"americans" sport not there, somebody complete the list of links --Feroang (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Please note that {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_11. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Teams in the plural?

I don't know if this is the strict convention in every sports article, but I've searched at least one NHL, NBA and MLB team and found them all the same.

"The Winnipeg Jets are a team..."

I strongly suggest that this is not the correct convention. I know this may likely begin a heated war just like the war that began re: books and TV shows whether "I Love Lucy is" or "was a TV show." So I ask that everyone be civil in this discussion, as there is bound to be differing opinions.

I think it's a non-contentious point to say that "is" is singular and "are" is plural, based on the subject noun that precedes the verb. So the question is; is "The Winnipeg Jets" a singular noun or plural?

In my opinion, the Winnipeg Jets is a) a hockey organization, b) a corporate entity and c) a team of players. Despite the fact that player John Smith may be described as "a Winnipeg Jet", singular, and that John Smith and a bunch of his colleages may be decribed plurally as a bunch of "Winnipeg Jets", The Winnipeg Jets, as described in the article is not "the roster of players who play for the Jets"; it refers to the larger, singular, organization. It is A team. The article is not about the roster of players.

Similarly, I don't think there is any debate that "the NHL is a league of ice hockey teams"; even though it's made up of various teams, it is still one league. To quote that article, "The National Hockey League [...] is an unincorporated not-for-profit association which operates a major professional ice hockey league of 30 franchised member clubs".

I would analogize this as "The Winnipeg Jets is an incorporated for-profit organization which operates a professional ice hockey team of ## players."

I would suggest that all team articles from hereon out should lead with "Team name is/was" and not "Team name are/were". TheHYPO (talk) 22:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether Collective nouns are plural or singular is one the issues that divides American English from British English (other varieties are alsodivided on this matter), thus in terms of the WP:ENGVAR rule both forms are accepted in WP depending on the variety of English used in the article concerned. Roger (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with the change, per established understandings. Looking at football, baseball, hockey, etc. this is a long-standing convention. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "The Winnipeg Jets are" is absolutely the correct usage, and to my ear, "The Winnipeg Jets is..." is unbelievably awkward. I would also note that it is a fairly consistent convention across most variations of English: The Nottingham Panthers are..., The Rolling Stones are.... Generally, "The foos are..." will almost always be a collective plural. Where it becomes collective singular is when the team name is not intended to be in the plural: Manchester United is, Sporting Kansas City is.... Resolute 23:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This Wikiproject doesn't have the authority to make a ruling on grammar usage - that authority belongs to the MOS. There is no point in discussing this any further here, I have pointed the OP to the Collective noun page where the phenomenon is properly explained. Roger (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Projects are very much the proper place to develop supplemental guidelines to elaborate on or describe conditions particular to the scope of the project. Unusual grammatical conventions, which is what this conversation is about, are exactly the sort of place where Wikiprojects should give guidance; if that guidance conflicts with the broader MoS, than that is a legitimate example of ignoring all rules. The MoS is not all-powerful, and doesn't trump everything; it's a guideline, and when its guidance is insufficient, something additional is needed. oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a common misconception with team names and is usually a case of ENGVAR. "The Winnipeg Jets are" would be correct in Canadian English. -DJSasso (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

And American English. While American and Canadian English typically use singular verbs for collective nouns, such as companies, sports teams are the exception, except when the city name is used as shorthand for the team. And it is a universal convention, pretty much used throughout the press at all levels, including top-quality sources like The New York Times. The roots are in the naming conventions for North American sports teams, where a geographic designator (or school) is paired with the team's official nickname. The conventions can be summed up with this example: The Boston Bruins are a team in the NHL. The Buins are the reigning Stanley Cup champions. Boston plays at the TD Bank Garden. oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused, because collective noun (under "Metonymic merging of grammatical number") basically states that collective nouns in British English may be singular or plural depending on context, and in American English "collective nouns usually take singular verb forms (formal agreement), but either a singular or plural verb is correct American usage where the noun is understood as a group of individual components". So with respect to the above comments, which language suggests plural is the only acceptable form?

I will accept the views of the masses, as it seems that there is a greater dispute in play than just the sports world, the only distinction I would make is that when discussing "The Boston Bruins are the cup champions", the writer can be seen as talking about the current team, and the players thereunder. Perhaps "The Boston Bruins is the team that won the stanley cup" sounds more proper singularly than "are the team", because instead of the plural Bruins, you have the singular team. Whereas, when you're discussing the history of the organization as a whole, you're talking about the singular organization; "What is the name of Detroit's hockey team?" - to me the answer flows "Detroit's hockey team is the Red Wings" not "Detroit's hockey team are the Red Wings". It's all context-dependant, and to me the context of wikipedia is that wikipedia is discussing the "Winnipeg Jets" - the Winnipeg Jets IS a hockey team. The new owners didn't buy a group of players. They bought an organization with employees, assets, IP, and contracts. I think that within the article, depending on context, there ought to be a mix of singular and plural, depending on context of each sentence.

You should be able to replace "the Bruins" with "the team" and still have the sentence make sense, but plural doesn't always do that. Ultimately, I suppose it's a disagreement greater than the sports world, and the best option is to avoid writing sentences that require a choice (saying instead the "team members" or "the organization" or "the team" where a singular/plural verb is required; but the lead still requires it on pretty much every sports team article.

PS: Re: band names, I've seen just as many edit wars over band names. When the band name is plural (the Beatles), people LIKE to say plurals, but ultimately the band is a band, and to me it seems proper usage is the Beatles was a rock band. If the band name is singular, you don't tend to see "KISS are a band..." - usually people say "KISS is a band..."; the convention, I suppose, stems more from the plurality of the team/band title, than the actual singularity or collectivity of what is being described. It's a symptom of titling a grouping with a plural title. This is not a huge issue in sports, where teams are rarely (though occasionally) singularly named. I do editing of a band page where I've dealt with this before, and ultimately it's context; am I talking about the band entity, or the band members? Bands are even harder than sports, because bands literally are the X members of the group, and little else. Sports teams have more than just the players; they have coaches, staff, equipment, facilities, etc. TheHYPO (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Here are some other usages to consider. And why not to use?

• The Winnipeg Jets are ...
• Winnipeg Jets is ...
• Winnipeg Jets, Ltd., is ... [but I don't know the corporate name]

On that triad see The Official Web Site – Winnipeg Jets. Why doesn't it title its homepage "Official Web Site – The Winnipeg Jets"? ;-)

• The Fire were on fire in the opening minutes ... (and "The Heat were hot")
• The Bruins were on fire in the opening minutes ...
• Boston were on fire in the opening minutes ...

That triad represents one common British usage, maybe standard. I have also read it from English Quebec: Montreal Expos were; Montreal were. --P64 (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding future fights to fight record tables

There is an ongoing discussion at WikiProject Mixed martial arts as to whether or not adding an upcoming MMA fight to a fighter's fight record table violates Wikipedia's WP:CRYSTAL policy. Could more editors chime in with an opinion?--Phospheros (talk) 04:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this necessary or even desired

Not being a huge sports fan, I turn to this group to evaluate a new article: Baseball announcers catch phrases on homers. Is such an article really needed, or even wanted? Or is it just another example of fancruft? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As someone who likes researching by comparing and contrasting, I think this article may have a place in an encyclopedia. No other source like this exists on the web. There is no clear, concise, cited source for this information all in one place. It may be a great link on the List of current Major League Baseball broadcasters. Well I would just say that it is a simple chart designed to allow people to compare and contrast different methods of expressing the same observation. In some ways it may have nothing to do with baseball but everything to do with syntax, language and the poetic description of live events. Perhaps this type of chart, if properly sourced and vigilantly updated, has a place in our pop culture discussions, language discussions, regional colloquialism discussions and certainly baseball discussions. comment added by Catanzdl (talk

Wikipedia isn't a place to collect original thought. This article is probably on the wrong side of WP:SYNTH, but it would probably have a place at one of Wikipedia's related projects - Wikiquote. Resolute 23:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Quarterfinal vs Quarter-Final

Hi,

I've been asking this question in various other places on this site and it has been suggested that I ask here also: Is there a preferred format of writing the above phrase in articles on this site? There has been a lot of searching & referencing & it seems that 'quarterfinal' is the American English version & 'quarter-final' is the English version as quoted in the Oxford Manual of Style. To muddy the waters somewhat, Collins (an English dictionary) prefers the American version.

I asked the question because, originally, I found both formats were used on the same page (Wimbledon 2011). These have now all been altered to 'quarterfinal' but I prefer the other way. I have also found variations all over the site.

I am trying to see if there is a preferred method or, if I were to make changes to the hyphenated version, would my changes be undone?

If anyone has any thoughts, I would be very grateful.

FingersLily (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: The same also applies to 'semifinal'/'semi-final'

It seems, from what you've researched, that either is an accepted spelling. Since the Wimbeldon article has standardized on the non-hyphenated version, there's no real reason to change it. But I'd bring it up at the article's talk page and see what the response there is. oknazevad (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

EHF Champions League

Hello!

I've nominated two articles for deletion a good while ago, but seems to get no attention and the whole process is pending since over two weeks. I'd like to ask you, that if you have time or you are in the mood, please, share your thoughts on the deletion entry to be able to reach a consensus. There are the articles:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 EHF Champions League qualifying phase
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 EHF Women's Champions League qualifying phase

Thank you! -- Thehoboclown (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Template policy discussion

I have invited you to participate in this discussion either based on personal interaction or because you are one of the leading editors on the talk page of WP:MLB, WP:NFL, WP:NBA, WP:FOOTY, WP:CFB or WP:WPCBB. Please invite any other editors that you feel might be interested.

It has come to my attention that each of these projects has different policies on a lot of editorial issues. I perceive template policy inconsistency (TPI) in athlete biographies to be a great problem on wikipedia. Although the sports with highly developed and lucrative professional team sports leagues have a lot of common interest on wikipedia because the players, coaches, owners, host venues, and major competitions in these sports are generally notable on wikipedia, the template policy is widely varied and confusing to both the reader and the editor. In general, the TPI issue is handled pretty consistently by football, basketball and baseball. WP:HOCKEY totally disagrees with these sports and excludes most templates I have been considering. Soccer has a policy that seems to be somewhere in the middle. I am wondering if WP:SPORT should set a policy regarding templates that all of the major sports agree to implement in a consistent manner. Other sports would be free to adopt the policy as well. For the time being, I believe WP:HOCKEY should be excluded because their vehement disagreement with most of these TPI issues would ruin any chance to come to a common policy agreement. If you look over my TPI chart you will see that there are several considerations for a template policy. At first, I was going to propose my own thoughts for ratification (see the TPI talk page). However, I think it might be more likely to come to a consensus, if we just put each individual template type up for discussion and came to a consensus. I would think this could occur in three stages. Stage 1: editors from various sports agree to put template policy to a vote; Stage 2: we come to an agreement on the common template types to put up for a vote; Stage 3: we vote either allow, disallow, or merge content with another template on each type. Among the types that would be considered are as follows

1. MVPs (regular season, post season, and primary all-star competition)
2. Other major awards
3. International teams
4. Olympic teams
5. Championship teams
6. League statistical leaders
7. Professional draft templates
8. Sports franchise and University individual sport templates
9. All-league teams
10. Collegiate All-Americans
11. Decade and All-time league teams

For the sports high school level, college level and professional level template policies could be unified across sports. Below could you comment on whether you think most sports should come to an agreement on a common template policy.

Stage 1: Survey

Feel free to state your position on the idea of setting a uniform WP:SPORTS template policy *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', state which projects you primarily edit for, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.

• Support as nominator, on behalf of WP:NFL, WP:NBA, WP:CFB and WP:WPCBB, I feel it would benefit the reader to be able to know what to look for on all the relevant pages. I also feel it would benefit editors to know how to help each other refine templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support; I think consistency is very important to avoid conflicts and misinterpretations. I meet differences every day, as I edit for WP:CYC, WP:HOCKEY, WP:FOOTY and WP:HANDBALL (or edit handball articles at least). I started out editing for FOOTY, then got heavily engaged at CYC, before I later joined HOCKEY. And I must say that WP:HOCKEY is pretty Americanized and hard to influence, so this might be the right way to establish worldwide sports consistency. lil2mas (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• As far as I'm concerned, WP:FOOTY should be the yardstick here. It is by far the most actively collaborative of WP's sport projects in terms of talk page turnover; it is certainly odd to assert that it is following some "middle ground" between WP:HOCKEY (which is proudly and defiantly different for the sake of it, across the board) and the majority of the other examples at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue (which are almost all US sports). WP:FOOTY is IMO a WikiProject which prides itself on early and enthusiastic adoption of general WP consensus and policy, and its templates certainly follow that line. There is a perennial argument that a certain division is needed between US sports and global ones, which may need revisited, but that would require much more than a simple up-down on "unification" here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not clear whether you are saying yes there should be a uniform cross-sport policy, but it should be FOOTY's without further consideration or that there should not be a uniform cross-sport policy because the issue is complicated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
    • As far as I'm concerned WP:FOOTY is doing the right thing already. I would support a uniform policy, but I do not see why this would require any change on behalf of WP:FOOTY (which IMO follows WP's template guidelines better than any other sports project at this point). The issue is only complicated in that, as you've documented, many US sports projects employ all sorts of navbox conventions not currently used by WP:FOOTY, and we need to discuss how that should be addressed (as it is evident that most US sports projects seem to think they're useful). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
      • You are saying two things. 1: What FOOTY does is right. 2:US sports projects do something that they think is useful. You are still not saying whether you think there should be a uniform cross-sport policy consideration.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support in general - I do think it is useful to make some Wikipedia-wide standards for sports templating. I think that would be a positive step forward. I'm not sure we have to even diffentiate "major sports". Sports championships are notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia. The various projects are capable of determining the notability, so we should not figure out another level of notability for 'major sports.' I'm not sure look and feel is also something that should be determined at the Sports level, except at some basic level, like generating base templates for all sports that can be overlaid with sport-specific content in some extensible way. I do like what is done on the French wikipedia to use icons. Something like that could be proposed at this level. Some will argue that the use of navboxes is overdone within the Wikipedia sports section. E.g., creating navboxes for magazine-determined awards is probably overdoing it. This must be respected in any step forward. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose what works for one project does not necessarily work for others. Not to mention that this proposal basically seeks to dramatically increase template clutter across all sporting projects. Resolute 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose If this were an attempt to coerce HOCKEY as you keep insisting that would be the case. It might be the case that fewer templates would exist for many projects if there were a uniform policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose in general I have no problem with an over all guideline, except that one of those options should be that there are none of these templates to begin with. But I also think that each project has its own needs for the subject matter they cover. Being that WP:EMBED, WP:NAVBOX, and by extension WP:ATC all suggest these sorts of templates should not exist at all. I think this discussion should probably focus on if they should exist or not exist, not on which ones to have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• agree - case in point, WP:HOCKEY has 2 sets of templates, one for NHL/ North American teams, and another for KHL and spreading to other European teams, following more in the steps of euro football (giving credence to WP:FOOTY, of course).--Львівське (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Having read through the arguments and counter-arguments below, I think that this issue isn't really as big a deal as the original nominator makes it out to be. Each sport has its own needs, and forcing each of these round pegs into the square hole of a universal template seems unneccesarily limiting. Furthermore, the US-centric nature of the proposal seems to ignore entirely the fact that top level team sports exist outside of its borders, and potentially creates more problems than it solves by implementing American sporting conventions on countries where those conventions do not exist. I think it's much better to allow each sport's individual project team to come up with their own templates, working within the framework provided by Wikipedia's sports template and navbox guidelines. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Each sport is different, and thus different approaches may be appropriate for different sports. And in some cases, a number of approaches are probably appropriate, but the editors working in various sports have different preferences, and as long as the approaches are appropriate, consistency is not essential. I am not actually sure what overriding necessity a drive for consistency accomplishes - all else being equal, consistency is better than inconsistency, but all else is not equal. Better to let the editors working in those sports use the approach they are comfortable with and that work for that particular sport, rather than force hockey editors, for example, to adopt the approach used for soccer. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

WP:FOOTY member here. I don't mean to come across as dense, but I really don't understand what you're proposing. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I am proposing setting a world-wide cross-sport uniform template policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but templates for what? Uniform page layouts? Player articles? Team articles? League infoboxes? Competition infoboxes> You don't make it clear what templates you are talking about. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Check the link above for "template policy inconsistency ". It is about templates used at the bottom of athlete bios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the basic idea is to attempt to compel WP:HOCKEY to stop acting different for the sake of it; this is indeed highly desirable, but the proposal put forward is currently far too US-centric. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. The goal is to let Hockey do what they do and get the rest of the sports world united under a common policy. If this can be achieved, then in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold. In what sense is it US-centric. If it is just omitted sports in the invite, I can address that. I guess, cricket might be a sport I forgot about, but I have attempted to contact the major sports that I am familiar with. I just forgot about them. In what other sense is this US-centric. Are their other sports with highly developed (lucrative and highly attended) team sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's US-centric in that only three of the twelve rows (tennis, gold, senior association football; ignoring the empty athletics column) are not predominantly US/North American sports. I hope that changes, but it's difficult to draw conclusions which aren't US-centric from the current table. And while I can see the strategy in trying to coerce the hockey project into conformity, in my experience that's not likely to happen while said project still insists that it can opt out of guidelines as it pleases based on nothing more than a head count. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to make any change to Hockey's usage. That would be fruitless and discussion of changing their policy will cause this to go no where. It is an attempt to get the other sports to coordinate policy better. Actually, I am not sure how tennis and golf fall into this policy because they are not team sports and don't share many of the issues with the invited groups to this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess my question would be why do this? I've read encyclopedias all my life and in looking at a hardback copy right now I don't see consistency in their sports article bios. I find it kind of charming that there are differences in how they look and not cranked out like some robotic factory. I have not edited any hockey pages (mostly tennis) but nothing worries me more than the statement "in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold." I hear that type of statement all the time in California elections and it always comes back to haunt the people. The new law will only require a ticket for no seatbelt usage if they stop you for violating something else. A foot gets in the door and then another law is passed to ticket non usage no matter what. Cigarettes worked the same way with first restaurants, then bars, then parks and now they are trying beaches. I'm not saying those end results are good or bad but it makes me worry about the final ending here with regards to hockey or tennis (like world team tennis) once this passes muster with all the sports you are suggesting. Probably my only post here but I wanted to express my concerns and have it on record lest one day it attempts to gobble up tennis in some way that throws out the beauty of a well made page in favor of some fill in the blanks form. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there are concerns about a sport like tennis that is not really a team sport. Above, I have said that I am not sure where tennis and golf fall. Certainly the team aspect of tennis is of minor importance compared to true team sports. I am really trying to get the team sports (sports where the primary and most prestigious competitions that are yardsticks of the sport) are coordinated. Being a league MVP or first overall draft choice have similar importance across these sports. Surely, we could implement a policy that is intended for bios for team sports athletes without mussing up tennis. I think we all understand that world team tennis championship teams are not notable in the same way as World Series or Super Bowl championship teams. My problem when I look at a page is I can't scan different bios the same way. If I look at an American basketball player, I know if he was consensus all-American in college because that templating system is complete. The football system is incomplete so I don't know and baseball has no such templates so I really don't know. It is confusing. This means the same thing across these sports. I imagine being a tennis All-American is probably pretty similar as well. Tennis was not asked to take part because I think this consideration is best applied to similar sports with major professional sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that only American sports have things like college honors and league MVPs and overall draft choices, right? I think that's what an earlier poster said about it being USA-specific and not really having any relevance to sportspeople outside the United States. I don't think this whole exercise is going to have any kind of impact on soccer, because 99% of the soccer players with articles on this site aren't going to utilize any of the templates you're talking about anyway. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure there would be things that don't apply for leagues that have no draft. However, there would be several considerations for Major League Soccer, which is in America. Don't they have a draft? Also, I think both the MLS and Premier League would have a major consideration for a cross-sport policy involving annual league championship teams. I don't know much about soccer, but I would like to be able to look at the bottom of David Beckham, Zidane or Ronaldo and figure out if they were on any Premier League champions and who their team mates were. However, it may be the case that football guys convince others that this is not important. For me, I would like to be able to see this at a glance and it would be a discussion point of a cross-sport policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, all sports are different, so that they use different templates. But awards templates could easily be harmonized I think. It would be harder for squad templates.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Is being on a Premier League Champion a lot less important than a World Series or Super Bowl champion? I sort of view it as the same because I read bits about the championship in the Wall Street Journal just like the American sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's no more or less important, but it's certainly different, and opens things up to a much wider scope than you may realize. The Super Bowl is the de-facto world championship, because with the exception of Canada, there are no other countries in the world which have a domestic American Football league. For soccer, however, there are premier league equivalents in well over 100 countries in the world. When you consider that most countries' domestic leagues go back 50 or more years, you're looking at at least 5,000 brand new templates, and that's just for domestic league competitions. When you add in domestic cup competitions like the F.A. Cup - which for some have equal weight as the leagues - plus continent-wide tournaments like the Champions League, the Europa League, the Copa Libertadores, the CONCACAF Champion's League, plus the Club World Cup... it's potentially enormous. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty, I may have the Premier League and the Champions League all mixed up. Basically, each sport knows which leagues are the highest level in their sport. The intent of a policy would be to have templates for the highest leagues in a sport. I don't believe that there are really 100 such leagues. It may be the case that their are 4 or 5 such leagues going as far down in importance as the MLS. It may be the case that I am misinterpreting what is out there. I don't know what CONCACAF is. Maybe you already have the templates that I think each sport would need to be uniform. I would not mind really if baseball added Japanese Baseball Championship templates as a policy issue. In all honesty, I think there must be a highest set of leagues. In hockey for example, most players play in the NHL and then when they get older some European players are still competitive in their own domestic leagues. However, I think most of these leagues are a cut below the NHL. I suspect soccer might be like that. I am sure a policy could be written broadly enough that it does not twist a specific sport's arm into producing unnecessary templates. The point is really do we want to be consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

JonBroxton, I have finally read up on my confusion and I was confused on Premier League and UEFA Champions League (and its sister the CONCACAF Champions League). I think what would be consistent with U.S. Sports is if the champion teams of these two tournaments (not all of the league champions) each had templates. Is WP:FOOTY against that? Has it been discussed before? Even if there is no official unification policy that would bring the global sports world aside from Hockey much closer to being consistent because that is the most significant difference between FOOTY and the other major sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally in favor of the navigation templates, but I do not believe that I speak for the general WP:FOOTY community in that. The WP:FOOTY community in large has been reducing templates, I believe, if I recall previous discussions accurately. matt91486 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing about FOOTY that differs from most sports is that there are so many international competitions that they have templates for. Thus a lot of good players get overloaded with those. I don't know what types of things have been getting reduced, but I also don't know which international competitions are truly the most important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason why you chose to canvass every project except the one that disagrees with you, (except a single individual on their talk page who was known to somewhat agree with you)? Which is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS? I am assuming it was an oversight and have done so for you. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was pursuing a policy agreement that does not include Hockey so I did not contact them as the matter does not concern them. You will note I have only contacted 6 projects and many sports in {{Team Sport}} have not been notified. Basically they are the 6 that have major team sports leagues almost exclusively based in the United States with which I am familiar. Admittedly, NHL is largely based in the US too and soccer has other major team sports leagues, but I think these are projects that have common interests and may come to a unified policy. I have no reason to believe hockey has an interest in a unified policy. It would be CANVASSING if the policy were intended to impact WP:HOCKEY and they were not contacted. However, this policy will not impact them if there is any agreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would impact us. If you create a standard that applies to every other team sport we will be forced into it applying to us as well because of consistancy issues. So instead of asking us to come and help with a consistent agreement you tried to cut us out of the loop so that you could develop a policy without us which would later be used to force us into agreement because "everyone else does it", which is evidenced by your comment "The goal is to let Hockey do what they do and get the rest of the sports world united under a common policy. If this can be achieved, then in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold". Which makes it clear your ultimate goal is to try and force us into line with what you want. Despite a guideline (WP:EMBED) suggesting templates should not be used for such things. As well as WP:NAVBOX which is an essay but is pretty much followed as a guideline.. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading my intent. I never intend to force HOCKEY to do anything. I was hoping to unify a policy in a way that would work well for other sports. I certainly hope "HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold" if a unified policy works out. This is different than forcing them to do what everyone else does. Pleas WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read AGF. It specifically mentions that you do not need to follow it when there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to bad faith. Which is clearly the case here. You ran out of good faith when you made personal attacks on an entire wikiproject calling the people in it the Hockey Mafia. Then proceeded to invite all the major team sports that are more likely to support you and ignored the one that is not likely to support you. Then instead of doing the conversation in the open on the WP:SPORTS talk page, you transcluded it to your own subpage so that no one following WP:SPORTS except those you hand picked would notice the discussion. Do you honestly think people are so dumb as to not see where you are headed with this? Give us some credit. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

And made it a subpage of your own page and transcluded it so that when people edited it on the WP:SPORTS talk page, it wouldn't show up on peoples watch list. Seems you have gone out of your way to illegitimately influence the debate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I have made it a separate page to preserve a history without clutter from other subject matter. I have been working on this and related subpages for weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

(I'm an active editor of CFB, HOCKEY, & FOOTY) Also, what's not been discussed is whether or not these types of templates should even exist in the first place. Per WP:NAVBOX: "For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{succession box}}. Variant templates for persons who have held several notable offices are discussed at Template talk:Succession box." So why should we have any navbox templates like {{Ballon d'Or recipients}}, {{Heisman Trophy}}, etc.? If you want to know who won those awards then you only have to go to each article's respective page, which ought to include a list of winners. HOCKEY is not being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian; WP policy is why HOCKEY has opposed navbox temps in that vein, much like we recently did at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 11#Template:Hobey Baker Award – much to the chagrin of this conversation's initiator – a discussion in which I did not take part, although I agree with the rationale. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, he is portraying that WP:HOCKEY is disagreeing with a common standard, which is not the case. Our stance is that both WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED indicate that you should not be using templates for these sorts of things, so we are not being contrary for contrary sake, we are following what is already laid out. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was the idea behind this discussion: To first vote over having a discussion about this issue, then come to an agreement of which templates to include, and which to exclude, and then vote over the different proposals. If this was not the case, I have to alter my vote... lil2mas (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The original intent was a discussion of whether the major team sports that were invited wanted to 1. Unify policy, 2. agree on templates involved, 3. vote on said templates. This was intended to be part 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The first time you brought this up Tony, you left agreeing that projects were free to do as they please. It's frustrating that you have changed your tune and are now looking for ever more devious ways to bully other projects into your MLB/NFL way of thinking. To answer your questions as a representative of WP:HOCKEY: 1. No, I do not have any interest in unifying "policy". Let each project decide how it wishes. 2. Moot given the answer to question one. 3. Moot given the answer to question one. Resolute 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

^What he said. And the fact you transcluded this as a subpage of your own page? So, so shady... 93JC (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple weeks figuring what is going on across wikipedia in my own user space and just transcluded it. Nothing shady.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. There is nothing at all shady about canvassing only those most likely to support you as you attempt to write a "global policy" and transcluding the discussion to your sub page so that those who did not get an invite because they are most likely to oppose you are less likely to notice the discussion in their watchlists. Personally, I think the most comical highlight of your efforts was how the one hockey project regular that you did invite featured a thread title and invitation message that was deliberately non descriptive so as to obscure your intent. Resolute 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think calling this a "great problem" is exaggerating: I don't think any readers are failing to find relevant information based on differing approaches for navigation boxes. Given the differences between the cultures of different sports in different locales, personally I don't believe there is a strong need for a single policy across all of them. Suggested guidelines to help give a project some ideas of alternate mechanisms of navigation might be useful. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

For example refer to Reggie Jackson and Oakland Athletics.

Is this all about that footer material between External links and Categories on these two pages? (Visit Reggie Jackson and "show" the "Links to related articles".) Or does it concern also the Infoboxes at top right, which may be called header material? --P64 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Reggie Jackson article paints a very impressive picture of just how bad the clutter is in the footer templates for the baseball project. You have both succession boxes and templates for awards. You have lists of teammates in some seasons but not others (winning a championship is notable, teammates are not). You have a retired number template that is completely redundant to the retired number section of the team templates. You have team templates that act as history of lists rather than navboxes. Additionally, they are riddled with POV and redundant entries. You have three separate templates noting that Jackson is in the Hall of Fame. And you end with a template that links completely unrelated teams and individuals together by the non-defining trait of being part of a city's Hall of Fame. I'd look at that and describe it as being an unparalleled mess. Resolute 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Jumpers, by the time a clean shaven fella got through reading all of those things (at Jackson's article), he would get up to leave & suddenly trip over his white beard. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat.

Is this all about footer templates? For example, visit Reggie Jackson; scroll down to External links and Categories; "show" the "Links to related articles".

Or is this also about header templates? At Reggie Jackson, see the box displayed at top right. It begins with his name. --P64 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony was refering to the Navbox footers and not the infobox templates, yes. Resolute 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Aven Archer

Does Justin Aven's feats in archery make him notable for Wikipedia? Joe Chill (talk) 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. A national junior amateur record in a single form of the sport isn't exactly the most notable of things, and as that appears to be his only claim to fame, I'd even consider prodding the article without further discussion. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Professional Squash Doubles

Could someone here please take a look at Professional Squash Doubles -- I just declined a speedy on it, but I am entirely uncertain about its significance, its possibly promotional nature, and its relationship to the other forms of the game. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Club world championships

This template need collaboration of everybody about sport that I do not even know, if your favorite sport have teams, which are not national sports team, and they play or played or gonna play a cup or championship against more that 1 more team from more that 1 continet, and be winning it they become the "world champions" or something around, please let us know it, in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports or in the discution of this template, thank you--Feroang (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Bat me up, Scotty

Aaarrrgh. This is so frustrating. I found this on WP once, & now I can't track it down again. I'm looking for a name connected with a racquet or ball & racquet game. It's something like genissa (I'm pretty sure it ends "issa", anyhow; the rest, maybe not...). It was, as I recall, an old name or old term, where the game/sport uses another name now. I've searched every ball & racquet game I can find here, & no luck. Does anybody know? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered here. Thx anyhow everyone. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sport related citation template?

Can some one create a template for game day magazines and season guides for sport teams? It would be really useful for some information for smaller sport teams that don't update their websites as often but do print that information for people on the grounds. --LauraHale (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sports MOS / Citing Rules?

Hi: Working on Roller derby, hoping that this might be a GA soon. My first foray into a sports article...can I can get some advice please?

• Is there as a special Manual of Style for Sports articles?
• There appears to be some question about how to manage citations for Roller Derby rules. I assumed that if a rule were mentioned in the text, an appropriate citation would be to specific paragraph or section of the rule book. Is this OK? Or do I need to find some different source that mentions the rule, like a newspaper article or other reliable secondary source for the rule to be cited?
• If there is no specific MOS to refer to, can I get advice about any preferred or successful teplates or styles to be used with citing rules?

Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD Assistance

The article Paul Hopfensperger is currently being considered for deletion. Notability seems to hinge at the subject's swimming awards. The subject has participated and won several swimming events but the importance of these events is not clear to a layperson. The AfD will end soon so hasty assistance is requested. I left a message at the Swimming wikiproject but haven't received a response or assistance. Thanks for any help you can provide.

I guess I forgot to sign this yesterday. OlYeller^Talktome 14:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

NFL in Portal:Current events/Sports?

Low relevancy to stay there, somebody disagree? or should we add every games of The Football League? or others National League (disambiguation), believe me there is a lot of its--Feroang (talk) 00:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say low relevancy if we aren't going to include other top-level competitions, and given the number of soccer leagues about, I think that impractical. Thus, I'd remove it. Resolute 01:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Category:2006 in Australian motorsport

I have proposed that Category:2006 in Australian motorsport be merged into Category:2006 in Australian sport. Please add any views you may have on the matter at the merger discussion. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Most television viewer sports events

The articles Formula One, Tour de France, Cricket World Cup and Rugby World Cup all claim to have the third highest telespectator figures after the Olympic Games and the FIFA World Cup. Broadcasting of sports events doesn't decide either. Can anyone please find trustworthy sources and fix all those articles? --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Peter Pakeman

Could someone kindly review the article, "Peter Pakeman", as it was initially tagged for having multiple issues (i.e., notability and references)? Since then, the focus has been on gathering references to satisfy Wiki's requirements for notability. It would be most useful to know if you are in agreement that the requirement for notability has been met. If this is the case, could someone replace the exiting tag(s) with one that is more appropriate. Please and thank you. Xave2000 (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Statistics tables

Is there some policy regarding the inclusion of complete statistics tables such as 1997 World Weightlifting Championships – Men's 54 kg? I feel this is in violation of WP:NOT#STATS, but I might be mistaken. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Discussion of notability of roller derby leagues and skaters

I started a discussion on the sport notability talk page about possible notability guidelines for roller derby leagues. Your input would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Pro gamers

At new article patrol, I have noticed in recent days that editor Redefining history has been creating several articles/templates on professional "DotA" players. As this is being called "electronic sports", I assume that it falls within the purview of this project. Knowing next to nothing of this stuff, I find these articles completely incomprehensible (which is not what an encyclopedia is for, I think). I also ignore completely whether these people are notable or whether the sources used are reliable. Perhaps somebody in this project would care to take a look at these articles and clean them up or propose them for deletion, as the case may be. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

• PS: will also post at Wikiproject Biography – Sports and games work group. --Crusio (talk) 10:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is up there with treating poker as a sport. :( :( Only ESPN & TSN think so. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

At least professional poker players actually get coverage. "electronic sports" has long been one of the most amusing inventions to me. They are still just video game nerds, regardless of what terminology they use to try and dress it up. As such, it would be the video game project that these individuals would fall under, not the sporting. Resolute 13:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Romsey Town Rollerbillies

Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Romsey Town Rollerbillies now has seventeen sources, a logo, several ELs, and clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria requirements for multiple published, non-trivial, reliable, intellectually and otherwise independent secondary sources, and is pending a move back to userspace by any editor who has not yet edited it per WP:GRADUATION. Dualus (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment request

If possible, could some one take a look at the following list of articles and determine if any of them should be assessed as Bs? I've self assessed most of the ones on the list as Cs because they are fully cited, have between 5 and 20 citations each, have sections and the prose isn't that bad. Given the topic, some of the articles are probably close to being complete as they will get. I'm just uncomfortable doing it myself as I've been the major contributor. Thanks! --LauraHale (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Alicia Aberley
• Ashley Adams
• Julianne Adams
• Fabian Blattman
• Brendan Burkett
• Cobi Crispin
• Daniela Di Toro

• Brendan Dowler
• Elizabeth Edmondson
• Benjamin James Ettridge
• Justin Eveson
• Steve Graham
• Michael Hartnett (basketball)
• Gerry Hewson

• Bradley Ness
• Shaun Norris
• Evan O'Hanlon
• Casey Redford
• Troy Sachs
• Brett Stibners
• Liesl Tesch

Rivalry template

I've taken a shot at creating a generic infobox for college sports rivalries: {{Infobox college rivalry}}. Comments appreciated at Template talk:Infobox college rivalry. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Good Article Nominations backlog drive - December 2011

Starting December 1st, there will be a month-long drive to reduce the backlog at Good Article nominations. With over 60 current nominations in the Sports and recreation section, I'm hoping editors from this project will want to participate - perhaps even stay to assist with other topics. Please visit the drive's project page for details. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games

If there are any Australians lurking around, Wikimedians to the Games is a collaboration drive to improve Australian Paralympic articles, with the most active contributors having an opportunity to go attend the Paralympic Games and to cover the Games behind the scenes with a press pass. The top two contributors will get their airfare and accommodation paid for. :) The drive official starts on 10 January 2012. --LauraHale (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Parkour / Red Bull Art of Motion

Is anyone familiar with the Red Bull Art of Motion? The article has two sentences, only one of which has sources, and a deletion tag was just recently removed. Is this the epitome type of poor coverage that this group aims to improve, or is the entry standard for the level of notability of the event? I try to only apply myself where there are needs and holes here, and my gut says that parkour, freerunning, and tricking have miserable coverage in general. Squish7 (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Not mention extreme walking! The RBAoM thing is a very short stub, but it's well sourced. It should absolutely be improved, but someone may have to round up the parkourish editors and start a task force or something to get the articles organized and improved. The RBAoM article is actually very good candidate for merging in to the parent article on the sport. It would improve that article and be less likely to attract "I wanna delete this" attention to the stub. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 13:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport

Hello if women's sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ladies ski jumping

New serie of pictures of jumping girls : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Manuguf , for your articles. Thank you. -- Manuguf (d) 21:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

New RfC on future NCAA college football seasons

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Request_for_Comment:_Material_on_future_football_seasons. Please help the community figure out what to do with material on future seasons. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:ESPYs

Is {{ESPYs}} suppose to be on the pages of the hosts. I just added it to Samuel L. Jackson, but am not sure if I should put it on everyone else's page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

American boys high school basketball underclass POY templates

Join discussion on this subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Basketball#High_School_basketball_underclass_POY_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

American high school football underclass POY templates

Join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football#American_high_school_football_underclass_POY_templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

List of professional sports leagues

This article is all over the place and needs work. It states pro-leagues in the title and lead, then in the lead it allows for semi-pro leagues. This could be addressed by people with greater sports knowledge than myself. Either dividing into pro and semi pro sections or clearing out the ones that are not fully professional. Anyone here willing to improve this article, the editor who created the article no longer contributes to wiki.Murry1975 (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New article

Feel free to jump in at Delay (game).

I think the article does a good job of bringing up the debate/issues of playing a sport in college. I think it would be helpful to discuss the different levels of playing (Division I, II, III) and how you level of play influences your college experience. I play field hockey at Georgetown (Division I) know a lot of friends who play division III--they seem to have a completely different college experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chickey13 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Handball?

Since I joined Wikipedia, I have wondered why there is no WikiProject for Team handball. So I'm wondering if there are anyone other then me interested in starting such a project? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

Project participants may be interested in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Importance assessment question, where we are discussing how to deal with general college athletics articles that don't fall under any particular sport (e.g. Florida State Seminoles); one suggestion was to remove them from WP:CFB and mark them as WP:SPORTS. If interested, please weigh in at that page. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

National sport team pictures

Hey. :) Question? Does anyone know if any national teams anywhere in the world have allowed a Commons or Wikipedia photographer to take pictures of every member of a team for use on Wikipedia and articles about members of the team? Not just some one takes them at a game, but having explicit permission? :) --LauraHale (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No that I've ever seen, but I'd be rather surprised if any team refused if asked. I've taken a pic or two of pool players at national tournaments on this basis (e.g. "You know, you have a small article at Wikipedia now, but it doesn't even have a picture. And, my phone takes 8 megapixel shots...") — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what this is a case of similar. :) Asked the team's media person if it could be done and got a yes. I have a Commons photographer going along and we have permission to take profile pictures for every player before the game. (Players told what the pictures will be for.) --LauraHale (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For the photos of the members of the national teams (in Canada and in the United States (USA)) reglemes exist. In the Canadian Women hockey and the Canadian Womens basketball, it is necessary to have a certification. I possessed this certification ($$ 320 canadian dollars ) and now I will go to IIHF Women's World Hockey Championship in April 2012. --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC) You can see my photos on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Genevieve2

Your photos are awesome. Seriously, I wish there was a chance to bring you to Australia for a week or two and do Wikipedia and Commons sport stuff. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Working Class Hero in Ice hockey

Merci Laura , C'est très gentil mais je ne crois pas que cela sera possible. I have no money to pay the airplane for Australia. I have some dollars for a warm meal every day. My family is poor jewish people in Montreal. My father Charles died is in December 2011 and I have to take care of my mom and my young sister. I am in the canadian working class, I do not believe that it will be possible to go to visit you. Je suis désolée mais c'est ainsi ma condition humaine --Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Running a bot to remove articles from WikiProject Sports

I have requested approval to run a bot to remove the WikiProject Sports banner from the talk pages of individual athletes. There are currently over 3,000 fencers (list in my Sandbox) that contain the banner.

I will specifically remove "WikiProject Sports", "WikiProject Sport" and "WikiProject Handball" There is some question about removing WikiProject Handball.

I will only be using categories that should contain individuals. Examples are: Category:fencers, Category:Handball players and Category:Footballers. I'm sure I won't get them all. I would go thru manually for any outliers.

I'm requesting permission from you to run this bot. Asking if I should remove Handball and answering any other questions you may have. Bgwhite (talk) 08:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not in this WP, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt if you like. Personally I'd prefer if all articles were within some wikiproject somewhere. For some individual players such as Victoria Crivelli (the first example I tried in your categories), removing WP:Sports would remove the last WP. So I'd prefer if you at least replaced it with Handball in her case. Just set them to low importance if you don't want to focus on them. --99of9 (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All sports people should already be in the sports work group of WikiProject biography. Victoria Crivelli didn't have the Biography banner. I just added it. btw, my next bot run will be adding the Biography banner to missing people. Bgwhite (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Ok, if you leave WP Biography:sports behind, that's perfect for me. --99of9 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I would be inclined to leave them and make sport as broad as possible, especially for projects that consider themselves to be daughter projects. That said, I would have no problems in principle with removing biographies from the category, provided they were identified as sport biographies AND part of another Wikiproject. If not, I'd leave them be. --LauraHale (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, If I understand correctly... In the above examples, I would leave any cases of WikiProject Handball intact, but remove the fencers because WikiProject Fencing exists??? I can do an added step. Make sure WikiProject Handball is attached to any handball players. Currently WikiProject Handball is a redirect to WikiProject Sports. Bgwhite (talk) 09:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds right. :) Basically two if thens: If it belongs to Biography=Sport, and if it belongs to Wikiproject=Some other sport, then remove the sport general tag. Not my ideal as I'd tend to favour over inclusion, but seems reasonable enough. --LauraHale (talk) 10:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agreed with LauraHale's "two ifs", though not necessarily for all the same reasons. WikiProject Biography principally exists to enforce WP policies with regard to biographical articles, and to make biographical articles consistent in various ways, regardless of topic. It's the exact opposite of a topical wikiproject, and is an internal-concerns wikiproject. Athletes should remain categorized by the topical {{WikiProject Sports}} if (and, per Bgwhite's bot idea, only if) they do not already have a more specific sport-project banner. It's important for WP:SPORTS that we be able to determine how many bios we have for under-categorized athletes, since this tells us what sport-related subprojects/taskforces would be most useful but which we don't have yet. I don't agree with, and we have strong trend away from, over-inclusiveness, like tagging all sport-related articles with the WP:SPORT banner when they already have a more specific (baseball, whatever) sporting project banner; redundant banners like that generally get deleted with impunity inside and outside of sports topics to reduce the "tag soup" at the top of article talk pages. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 01:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree that sportspeople that come under more specific Wikiprojects should be removed from this project. I'm undecided about whether those without sport-specific projects should remain or not. I don't think either choice is a wrong decision. SFB 21:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, they should be removed for people already in a sports specific project. But anyone without a project should be left. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

OK... I will:

1. Remove WP Sports from those athletes whose sport does have a WikiProject.
2. If the other sport's WikiProject is not found on the talk page, I will add it before removing WP Sports.
3. If the Athlete's talk page does not include WikiProject Biography or doesn't have the sports-work-group set, I will add WikiProject Biography and/or sports-work-group.

After I get finished with this bot run. I will be requesting another bot run to add WikiProject Handball to all Handball athletes. WP Handball is a redirect to WikiProject Sports Bgwhite (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to do a test run, this category and its sub categories might be a good place to start. I strongly suspect I have many of them tagged for WP:sports in addition to several other projects. --LauraHale (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It came back clean. No WikiProject sports were found. I'm using this tool to generate lists. Settings I put

1. Depth = 1
2. Categories = Paralympic competitors for Australia
3. Template:Has all of these templates = WikiProject Sports (The talk page button is checked)

Everything else is set to the defaults.

Bgwhite (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Please tell me you really meant:

1. Remove WP Sports from those athletes whose sport does have a WikiProject

— SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 09:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I did mistype. You are correct. I changed it above. Bgwhite (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Skating people

In light of the disambiguation page that is Skating, would Category:Skating people or Category:Skaters be useful containers for categories such as Category:Roller derby skaters, Category:Figure skaters, Category:Speed skaters and the like? Or should they, as distinct activities/sports, be kept separate even in categorization? Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Skating people would be useful but it should probably be differentiated by type: Ice, non-ice. All "roller" sports are largely governed by the same international organisation, which includes inline/roller hockey, speed skating, roller derby (to a degree), figure (roller/inline) skating. --LauraHale (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but even if differentiated by type, the differentiated categories are naturally subcats of the generic one. Note also that Category:Skating people (and topical subcats thereof) would be a superset of Category:Skaters (and topical subcats thereof), and would include coaches, etc. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I have created and partially populated the category, and I've encountered two issues: first, there are very few skating biography categories that are not for skaters; and, second, Category:Skaters currently is defined quite narrowly and I wonder whether its scope should not be expanded to include the likes of Category:Speed skaters and Category:Figure skaters. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Squad number

Squad number is currently at RM see here. I just thought I'd bring it to your attention as it's possible in it's last day there & hasn't had many comments. Although it mayn't be a high priority article it's still a cornerstone of sport. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Athletics

A request has been made for this portal to be portal peer review. Contributions and suggestions are welcome. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Sailing

I made a request here for promotion to Featured portals. Any suggestion or contribution is welcome. --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox for the International Sports Federations

See this discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Standardize Won/Loss Colors

Please see Template_talk:Table_cell_templates#Standardize_Won.2FLoss_Colors. --ben_b (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk:List of professional sports leagues

There is a discussion going on over at this talk page regarding the definition of league and whether MMA organizations (and has spun into a discussion on tennis, boxing, auto racing and the like) qualify. I figured members of this project might be interested in contributing to this discussion. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

RFC on GAMEGUIDE

Your input is requested at WT:NOT#Formalized proposal: Changing GAMEGUIDE. --MASEM (t) 21:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Relevant TfD

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_17#Template:Olympic_sports The discussion stalled and needs consensus. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Olympic champion

May I ask why there is no article Olympic champion? This is a lifelong title, different from other champions. It is just medalist. --93.73.19.163 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no article because you haven't created it yet? :) There was no discussion regarding this, just a redirect created back in 2006. If there are the sources to treat this as an independent subject, you should be able to easily do it. --LauraHale (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't really see how it would be different than the page that is already there other than the Olympic champion is just the gold medal winner. -DJSasso (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

This time, I agree with Djsasso. --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Navbox for deletion discussion

In case this project is interested, there is a deletion discussion here regarding Template:Wolverine–Hoosier Athletic Conference navbox. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead sections of sports' main articles

Hello WikiProject Sports. I'd like to widen a discussion taking place at Talk:Rugby league#Intro regarding the lead sections of sports' main articles. I gather from the leads of featured articles such as Association football and Baseball (as well as Tennis, Ice hockey, Netball, etc.), that it is appropriate to comment on the popularity level of the sport geographically, presumably to satisfy Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Some editors however, are claiming that doing so violates Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch#Puffery, and that only facts and figures can be used, leaving readers to decide for themselves whether that constitutes being popular. There's been edit-warring and even blocking of users, so a bit of input from some cool heads looks like just what's needed.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Leads should properly summarise an article. If relative popularity is not discussed in the article, it doesn't belong in the lead. --LauraHale (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Olympic WikiCup?

Would anyone be interested in setting up and / or participating in an Olympic/Paralympic WikiCup? Modeled kind of after the Bacon Wiki Cup? Have it run from say a week before the opening ceremony for the Olympics and a week after the Paralympics? I can probably offer two prizes: Some book about the Olympics, a print of an Olympic related commons image, and a Pediapress book.

Points for the following things about the Olympics/Paralympics:

Category	Points
Fully reliably source an article of 100+ words (partially sourced)	2
Adding a relevant picture to an article without one	2
Adding a complete infobox for articles with out them	2
Fully reliably source an article of 500+ words (partially sourced)	5
Fully reliably source an article of 100+ words (completely unsourced)	5
Comprehensive (no quick pass/fail) GA review	5
Create a spoken word version of an article 25+ words	5
Fully reliably source an article of 1,000+ words (partially sourced)	10
Fully reliably source an article of 500+ words (completely unsourced)	10
Create a spoken word version of an article 100+ words	10
Fully reliably source an article of 1,000+ words (completely unsourced)	20
Create a spoken word version of an article 500+ words	20
Create/improve an article for DYK	25
Publish a Wikinews article	25
Get an image or other media to featured on English Wikipedia or Commons	25
Create a spoken word version of an article 1,000+ words	30
Substantially contribute to, nominate, and follow through an article for GA	50
Substantially contribute to, nominate, and follow through an article for FL	50

This way, lots of way for people to participate across different projects. :) --LauraHale (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPORT's opinion of WP:NAVBOXCOLOUR

A lot of this project child projects use team colours in the navigational templates. However when the team decided on their colours readability on an online encyclopaedic wasn't foremost in there thoughts . This leads to templates that I for one can't read. I've made this edit [3] but was reverted . Perhaps WP:SPORT can come up with contrast guidelines or other ways of keeping the colours while keeping similar colours such as [4]. Any thoughts? Gnevin (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Olympic Games" (grammatical number)

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Olympic Games" (grammatical number) (version of 21:39, 4 July 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympics and DYK

There is a special holding area for DYK hooks that have been approved and are about the Olympics. These will run during the two weeks of the Olympics. At the moment, most of the DYKs there are about people from the Australia, with a few people from the USA and the Great Britain. It would be great to see more countries represented in DYK-land. :) Support your country. Improve articles related to your country's Olympic movement ahead of the Games. ;) --LauraHale (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of Italy. For example, these are some of my work on the topic: Italy national athletics team, Athletics in Italy, Italy at the 2012 European Athletics Championships and collaboration to Italy at the 2012 Summer Olympics. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just make sure they are eligible under WP:DYK rules. :) Would be nice to see some Italians in there. :) I'm shooting for a personal goal of around 42 Australian Olympians at DYK: One for each prep area across all 14 days. --LauraHale (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it respect the criteria, but I tried my first (after I'd expanded article): {{Did you know nominations/Gelindo Bordin}}. --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I manage to make a DYK or two about a Norwegian Olympian. :) Mentoz86 (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Norwegians would be awesome. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Sports

With the Olympic games imminent and a rush of content no doubt due to be added, I'd like to ask contributors to this WikiProject about Portal:Current events/Sports. It is essentially largely unreference Wikinews content and is being stored, oddly as a Portal. The Portal itself contains, little or no Portal content or functionality. It seems to serve little purpose other than for a small group of editors to store sports scores, something mentioned specifically in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and seems to serve little purpose, as being saved in Portal space these scores do not appear in wikipedia searches without utilising advanced setting. Is it salvageable for any purpose? Or should it be nominated for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion? --Falcadore (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Covering the Olympics/Paralympics live and in person for Wikipedia and other WMF projects

Hi. For the 2012 Summer Paralympics, two Wikipedians (myself and Hawkeye7) are going to London to cover the Games with press credentials acquired through Wikimedia Australia. Covering these Games successfully on Wikinews and Wikipedia provides a fantastic opportunity to use this as leverage to get the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games in the next few years. The more successful we are at doing on the ground Original Reporting that coincides with Wikipedia article improvements and getting pictures in advance, the better we can use it to get additional access because Wikipedia and Wikinews will have a track record of success. In order to do this, we need your help on Wikinews. The Wikinews part is being organised as Wikinews:Paralympic Games. The main focus needs to be writing Original Reporting. We need people to help copy edit, to take original reporting notes and write them into Wikinews articles, who can hunt down acceptable licenses for pictures to use on articles. (IPC policy only allows a CC-BY-NC kind of license at the events. Not sure accreditation wise we'll be good to go with getting our own images in any case.) We also need people who can help with reviewing. Any assistance you can provide would be very much appreciated. Please sign up at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. :) --LauraHale (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

club Women football by year?

International women's club football, as 2011–12 UEFA Women's Champions League and others simils are not in articles likes 2011 in association football, 2012 in association football, 2011 association football continental champions, 2012 in sports, also we have a rule of how post it in? is there a article to use as a example--Feroang (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate at the 2001 Mediterranean Games

There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karate at the 2001 Mediterranean Games on the notability of non-Olympic/Paralympic multi-sport events. Other than the Olympics and Payalympics, WP:NSPORT currently doesn't specifically mention how to treat multi-sport events (WP:SPORTSEVENT does discuss final series, college bowl games, and exhibition games). I think a wider community discussion over the issue is necessary. Any thoughts?--SGCM (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear--the discussion is about individual events at such gatherings. To be specific, this discussion was started because the karate articles for the Mediterranean games had no sources and no text--just results. I do not think these events have automatic notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you canvassing for votes? Because it sure as heck looks that way by coming here and expressing an opinion. Beyond that, you are a frequent nominator of MMA related articles, nominated just the karate related one and didn't nominate the other sports which have similar issues. --LauraHale (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

How is coming here to express an opinion canvassing for votes? Are you saying I'm not allowed to express an opinion? You object to the fact that I haven't nominated other articles that might be worth deleting--so it's now my job to nominate all unsourced articles on Wikipedia? I was simply trying to express my opinion on the question asked as well as clarifying it. I wanted it to be clear that the topic wasn't about whether multi-sport events like the Mediterranean Games were notable, but rather if articles on every individual event at such games should be considered notable (especially when they're unsourced). Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

A properly linked page cascade in itself is not a bad way of arranging things but the real question is how far down does one go before it becomes non-notable fill. It was not clear from WP:SPORTSEVENT what the limit is even for Olympic events. Do we for instance report every heat for every event. For lesser events do we go less or the same? This is a pretty hot topic for Mixed Martial arts also.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I would say that individual events at multi-sport events are not automatically notable. However, if it can be shown they meet WP:GNG without being just WP:ROUTINE, then articles on individual events can be kept. I don't object to the page cascade that Peter mentions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Missy Franklin

FYI Talk:Missy Franklin is currently discussing issues concerning people with dual citizenships, and sportbio infoboxes, and the lack of consistency with infobox person -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming principle?

Some countries are designated as different names by sport organizations. For example:

Country	Designations by organizations		Wikipedia flag templates		Notes
	IOC (short name)	FIFA	{{FlagIOC}}	{{Fb}}
Democratic Republic of the Congo	DR Congo	Congo DR	Democratic Republic of the Congo	DR Congo
People's Republic of China (China)	China	China PR	China	China
Republic of China (Taiwan)	Chinese Taipei	Chinese Taipei	Chinese Taipei	Chinese Taipei	See Political status of Taiwan.
Hong Kong	Hong Kong, China	Hong Kong	Hong Kong	Hong Kong
Ireland	Ireland	Republic of Ireland	Ireland	Republic of Ireland	See Republic of Ireland, Ireland (island), Northern Ireland and Names of the Irish state. The "Republic of Ireland" is not the official name of Ireland (as sovereign state), but is used to distinguish among all the island of Ireland, the republic and Northern Ireland.
North Korea (North Korea)	DPR Korea	Korea DPR	North Korea	North Korea
South Korea (South Korea)	Korea	Korea Republic	South Korea	South Korea	South Korea has been designated as just "Korea" at all the Olympic Games.
Macau	Macau, China	Macau	Macau	Macau	Macau is not a member of the IOC yet, but the area was designated as "Macau, China" (MAC) by IOC. See Macau Sports and Olympic Committee.

However, the some of designated names above are not reflected in articles (such as South Korea at the Olympics and South Korea national football team) sport-related flag templates (e.g. {{flagIOC|KOR}} produces "South Korea" not "Korea" and {{fb|KOR}} produces "South Korea" not "Korea Republic", respectively with the flag icon). I don't know what is the naming principle in Wikipedia. Is there the principle? --Virtpedia (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

South and North Korea are corre3ct per Ccommonname. Distinguishes better for most people. -Koppapa (talk) 08:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad English in titles

There are a host of articles with titles like 1893 World Allround Speed Skating Championships that have bad English in their titles ("Allround" instead of "All-Round"). There is not consistent justification for this usage in the citations. For example, a The-Sports.org page uses both "Allround" and "All-round". All of the titles (and the text in the articles) should be corrected. See the links to years in the tables in World All-Round Speed Skating Championships for Men. I have done a few (for example, World All-Round Speed Skating Championships), but this is not my area of interest. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Dream Team

Please join the discussion at Talk:1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team#Reqested_move to rename "1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team" to "Dream Team (basketball)".—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Allez & Come on – Sports cheers list by nation needed

In course of Wikipedia growth we have already created many articles on sporting events and sportspeople. There is a lot of good work behind us: tons of biographical information, competition summaries, lists of medals and other achievements, rules and terms explanations, equipment descriptions etc. But one key aspect of sport has no coverage so far - which continues to puzzle me - even after several Olympics passed we still lack an article listing and explaining in detail most "basic" sport cheers shouted on international level by spectators toward athlete(s)/player(s)/team from their respective countries to encourage them. IMHO this is from worldwide perspective (en: wiki being the hub for its other sisters) much more important than several artificial colleege chants presently mentioned in Cheering article. As there are often various cheers depending on context and many side cultural aspects involved, Wikipedia seems better suited for handling this topic than 1:1-translation-oriented and low-context Wiktionary (cf. wikt:en:come on).

From sports perspective (and contrary to Wiktionary structure) it is important to handle the matter by countries and only secondarily (within those countries) by languages. In first round I suggest to use a structure roughly like Toll roads around the world (country-dedicated sections). For example: In country XXX the basic encouraging sports cheer is YYY YY (literally: ZZ ZZZZ). It is used in such and such context (sport type, one or more athletes, gender etc). The form including country/ethnic name for the national team is YYY YY, xxx. Other cheers used are: (context and meaning details following) and so on.

Later we could eventually step towards separation of contents-heavy sections (presumably sports powerhouses) into self-standing articles (akin Polish name within Names). --Miaow Miaow (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of archers to be added

I just came across a number of pretty good, freely licensed, pictures of archers from the 2012 Olympics, if anybody is interested in adding those to Wikipedia. --pred (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Naming of sports classification pages

See Wikipedia:RM#August_31.2C_2012 for discussions on the naming of several sports classification pages -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Type of Disability and Disability Class

Can someone please insert the above two lines in the {{Infobox sportsperson}} ? --Kasper2006 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Paralympics

What do you think? We do finally? --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The Paralympics task force has existed for years - WP:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics. Why are you linking to this very old proposal? If you think it should become a full separate Project instead of it's current status as a Task Force under the Olympics Project then you should put such a proposal to the existing Task force, not here. Roger (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Magic number (sports)

The Magic number (sports) isn't sourced. Does anybody know where sources on the topic can be found? Kingjeff (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Why don't rugby team templates have colour schemes?

Hello. You may find on this talk page a discussion that is underway regarding the question of why don't rugby team templates have colour schemes?

I have noted that every other team-sport templates have colour except the rugby ones. So i was wandering how it is possible that WikiProject Rugby union can resist such standardization? Thanks.Suid-Afrikaanse (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The egg of Columbus

{{Infobox sportsperson biography}}, as I explian here (an example of use Kateřina Emmons). User:Caveau: a genius! ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Fly boarding

I'm not much into sports by saw this really cool video of what I guess is a new sport in case there are enough WP:RS for an article - especially one explaining how it works. (Link to site on youtube page http://flyboard.com/). (Also noted this at Kite landboarding where the term is used for something else. CarolMooreDC 15:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)