Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

NGYMNASTICS piping[edit]

I've reverted this recent edit to WP:NGYMNASTICS that removed the piping of World Artistic Gymnastics Championships, replacing it with the more generic World Gymnastics Championships. Background is that this piping has apparently been there since April 2010. I'm inclined to remove the piping, but not without a discussion of whether the inclusion criteria should be "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships" or "World Gymnastics Championships". Is there evidence that participation in non-artistic championships presumably generates enough coverage for the athlete to meet WP:GNG? Otherwise, the more restrictive "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships" should be used unpiped, as that is what has been linked since WP:GYMNASTICS' original inclusion. —Bagumba (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the final choice the piping needs to go. I got into a whole argument on a CSD because the subject of the article had competed in the "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships" and the criteria as written here said "World Gymnastics Championships". The point of the notability guidelines is to help not to mislead. Gymnastics isn't my thing, so it's not helpful getting guidance in the text that's contradicted in the link's piping. Bazj (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
It should read "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships". There was not enough input from the gymnastics WPproject to determine if non-artistic gymnasts such as tumblers, trampoline and rhythmic gymnasts who merely participate generate non WP:Routine coverage. My cursory searches of some of these athletes who did not medal in the US suggest they do not gain such coverage. I'm happy to defer to experts in the subject, but until such experts edit this page we need to error on the side of under inclusion for the sake of NSPORTS credibility at afd.MATThematical (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


The current notability criteria for Cricket reads as follows:

A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she

1. has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire

2. has appeared in at least one ICC World Cup Qualifier match since 2005, or in an ICC Trophy final prior to 2005, as a player or umpire

3. has appeared in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Five status or above since 2007 as a player or umpire

Points 2 and 3 above are quite specific and easy to follow. My difficulty lies with the phrase "major cricket match" in point one. This is too imprecise and open to interpretation. I believe we need to be much clear-cut in our list of what sorts of matches fit within this phrase. This is currently a point of contention in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Clube.

A current suggestion is that the phrase refers to "first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket" matches. If that's the case, then let's state that specifically. If there are other match types that need to be added then let's include them as well. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The term "major cricket" is currently defined on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket page at WP:CRIC#MAJOR. So the work has basically been done. — Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Expanding the definition to list what "major" cricket matches are. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems sensible and consistent. Johnlp (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been bold and changed the link in the current wording to point to WP:CRIC#MAJOR. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I got distracted by other things and have only just back back to this. Looks good. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Bullpen catchers[edit]

Let's try to get a consensus. Are MLB bullpen catchers...

  • coaches, thereby qualifying as notable under WP:BASE/N?
  • not coaches, but still qualify as notable under WP:BASE/N?
  • not coaches that do not qualify under WP:BASE/N, so they must pass WP:GNG instead?
  • something else?


  • What, if any, changes can and/or should be made the WP:BASE/N in regards to bullpen catchers? Alex (talk) 09:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
As bullpen catchers are not on the active roster, I don't see any clause of the guidelines that would apply with respect to your second bullet. Whether or not they are a coach is something that I personally feel would have to be judged on a individual basis: some coaches may act also as bullpen catchers, while some bullpen catchers may fill solely that role. isaacl (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any need to make changes to the guidelines relating to bullpen catchers. They are considered members of the coaching staff as is. Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
That's the problem. Just because a few people at Wiki have decided that bullpen catchers are coaches doesn't make it so. Calling bullpen catchers "coaches" seems to fly in the face of MLB's own definition and rules. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG Thanks for starting this, Alex. As I have laid out in various AfDs involving bullpen catchers, it seems clear that MLB does not consider bullpen catchers to be coaches from a strict definitional sense. MLB only allows teams to have one manager and seven coaches in uniform for games, and from looking at various teams' coaching staff lists, bullpen catchers are almost always the eighth or even ninth person(s) listed. (A few teams have two bullpen catchers.) If bullpen catchers were coaches, they would 1) have "coach" in their title, 2) count against MLB's seven-coach limit, and 3) generate sufficient media coverage such that they don't rely on the presumed notability clause of BASE/N to justify the pages on Wikipedia.
Right now, almost every page for a bullpen catcher on Wikipedia is relying on BASE/N rather than GNG, while not a single current MLB bench coach, hitting coach, pitching coach, first base coach, third base coach, or bullpen coach is relying on BASE/N. All of those coaches, who are clearly coaches by MLB definition, have generated more than enough media coverage to pass GNG and render BASE/N moot. Since bullpen catchers wear a uniform and are on the field during games, they're often listed on a team's roster, mostly for informational purposes, so that it's not a big mystery when someone sees a guy wearing #86 out in the bullpen. But that doesn't make them coaches, and it doesn't make them notable. My belief is that bullpen catchers should fall under bullet No. 3 above — "not coaches that do not qualify under BASE/N, who must pass GNG." If people want to keep them on the roster templates, that seems okay, but perhaps in regular text rather than as red links, which seem to tempt people into creating pages for people who can't pass GNG. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any need to make changes to the guidelines relating to bullpen catchers. They are considered members of the coaching staff as is. Spanneraol (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I would say "not coaches that do not qualify under WP:BASE/N, so they must pass WP:GNG instead". WP:BASE/N and other guidelines were created to make it easier to establish notability. Given the many bullpen catchers nominated for deletion, most of them does not pass WP:GNG but looking at the pitchers, batters and fielders in MLB, they usually all pass WP:GNG.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 22:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I do not want to have my say on if they're coaches or not. I don't know a lot of baseball.  ΤheQ Editor  Talk? 22:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not know much about baseball. But from the little information I have I think qualifying as notable under WP:BASE/N.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't think the right question is being asked here. Do bullpen catchers who are not already notable for other reasons (i.e.: former player) generally receive enough reliable source coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:V? If yes, then it would be appropriate to include them in BASE/N. If no, then they should be treated case by case. SNGs are meant to reflect notability, not establish it. Resolute 23:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
The answer to the above question is ... no. We've had at least a dozen AfDs for bullpen catchers, and I can only think of one example where people claimed the subject passed GNG, and that was a rather absurd example where there was only ONE article about the subject on a team site. In every other case, people kept claiming bullpen catchers were coaches and then citing BASE/N. As someone said above, using BASE/N to presume notability for a class of people who don't generate substantial media coverage is the opposite of BASE/N's purpose. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG: I've likewise seen the assertion that bullpen catchers are coaches, without the slightest bit of evidence to support it. Let's take the Boston Red Sox, where its "Manager and Coaches" section lists a Bullpen Coach, but not a "bullpen catcher." That coach (whimsically enough, his father was my elementary school gym teacher) was the bullpen catcher ten years ago, and his entry says so, but is not now. Not even the "Staff" section lists a bullpen catcher. Boston's current bullpen catcher is a chap named Mani Martinez, and he's only mentioned once on the Sox's website [1] -- a news article about him cleanly catching a David Ortiz grand slam in the bullpen where an outfielder had tried to snare it and fell into the bullpen at Martinez's feet. This doesn't suggest that Martinez occupies a notable position in the Red Sox organization.

    Now some teams do list bullpen catchers in their coaching rosters (the Yankees and Giants do, anyway), and that's fine: if they want to designate more coaches, that's one thing. But there doesn't seem to be anything about the profession of bullpen catcher that's so universally identified with "coach" that it's worth a presumptive pass on NSPORTS. Ravenswing 23:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, the guideline for coaches could probably use revisiting. Once upon a time, coaching jobs were often sinecures for retired players, so notability rested solely on the coach's playing career. Though I won't say this is no longer the case universally, competitive pressure in today's game has resulted in many if not most coaches needing to fill specific roles in preparing an MLB team to compete. However, the vast majority of them do their work anonymously, with little independent, non-promotional coverage in reliable sources. Given this, perhaps the guideline should not be a standard of one MLB game coached. isaacl (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

  • I'd be down with that. For any NSPORTS criterion, the basic building block should be: "Do those who meet this standard generally meet the GNG?" The basic test should be: "If I were to take every Strength/Conditioning Coach on a MLB roster and ran him through the GNG, would I get 90%+ success?" If the answer to that test is "No," then the standard is broken and ought to be revised. Ravenswing 00:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily agree with the first sentence of the above (I'm not convinced the entire coaches guideline needs to be revisited), but I agree with the rest of the above. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying you're wrong, isaacl, but I'd be surprised if many, if any, current MLB coaches are relying on BASE/N. These days, coaches tend to get a lot of coverage, especially with and all of the various team sites out there. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
The baseball-related notability guideline is mostly used in two ways: to defer deletion on articles for persons who played during a period for which sources are more difficult to locate, and as a trigger for editors who like creating new articles to create a quick stub for the latest players in MLB, without adding sources. I'm not convinced that there is adequate independent, non-promotional coverage of coaches in today's game (the team's website and fan sites are not independent, and personally I'd prefer a more general source than, which still serves a promotional purpose for MLB even though it is editorially independent), and I think in the past, there were many coaches who weren't notable for their role as a coach. Thus I think it is problematic to have a guideline for coaches, on both counts. (As an informal test for contemporary coaches: How many coaches can you name on teams other than the one you follow regularly? How many coaches who are not pitching, hitting, or bench coaches?) isaacl (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches - usually no significant coverage. No need for inclusion in the SNG. team pages sometimes list them as coaches, but they also list people like "senior baseball advisers". I'd support removing them from the WP team roster templates too, as most should be red links I'd think. I noticed that the bullpen catchers for the Rangers and Yankees have WP entries, but I think the notability is tenuous even in those cases. Note that bullpen coaches and bullpen catchers are separate roles, with many bullpen coaches passing GNG and NBASEBALL as former pitchers anyway. I know there are a couple of teams with former MLB players as bullpen catchers, but it's much less common from what I can tell. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 01:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I do not feel passionately one way or the other on this -- I suppose my inclusionist tendencies might lead me to give them the benefit of the doubt. For what it's worth, this article, entitled "Phillies retain entire coaching staff", mentions that the Phils' bullpen catcher, Jesus Tiamo, is the longest-tenured member of the Phillies coaching staff: "the longest-tenured member of the staff; he's handled the bullpen catching job in each of the last six seasons." At least in his case, I think he can reasonably be considered part of the coaching staff, and thus notable per BASEBALL/N. Go Phightins! 02:25, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we'd want to assume notability because one writer referred to a bullpen catcher as "part of the staff" when wrapping up a recap of a press release. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. Tiamo isn't a coach because a sportswriter says he is; he's a coach because the Phillies' website says he is. Ravenswing 05:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG - Not players, not coaches; they're support staff. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches must pass GNG- I'm not really familiar with Baseball but everything I've researched and statements from the MLB itself seem to go against them being coaches.--Church Talk 05:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG - As with the Wikipedian above, I too was not too familiar on the subject so I did some research. Every baseball player I found to be a "bullpen catcher" was not a Coach. -A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 06:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG (as everything must) -- The beauty of guidelines like WP:BASE/N is it provides standard "rules" to govern most cases, but the guideline is based on what normally would pass WP:GNG, we shouldn't extend the presumption of the guidelines to situations that don't fit. I'm an inclusionist, but I was rather surprised at the vote tally in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steve_Cilladi, one puff profile really does not meet WP:GNG. There is no history to show us that bullpen catchers are typically notable and thus should be included in the presumption of notability of WP:BASE/N.--Milowenthasspoken 12:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG (as everything must) -- Are there any sources showing that show that a bullpen catcher is more than a person catching a ball? There is a pitching coach and a bullpen coach. So, how many more coaches do the pitchers need? Kingjeff (talk) 13:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG Per above
  • Must pass GNG - Ravenswing makes an important point in this discussion. ANY criteria included in a SSG should indicate someone who in the vast majority of cases would meet GNG. The whole purpose of the guidelines are to help avoid unnecessary deletion discussions and help editors quickly make an assessment of notability. I have seen a lot of creep lately where these guidelines are expanding to the point where they don't meet this purpose (adding leagues where the players don't always or even usually meet GNG), and it undermines the credibility of all sport guidelines. If someone wants to make an argument that bullpen catchers meet GNG, do this. Take he last 3-4 years and assess each person against GNG. Would they all meet it? Being a bullpen catcher in and of itself doesn't make you notable, but are all of these guys coming down a career path that at some point makes them notable? This is why first and second round NBA draft picks are included under WP:NBASKETBALL. Being a second round pick doesn't make you notable, but pretty much every second round pick meets GNG through their college and/or pro (Europe, etc) careers. Rikster2 (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
    • The last addition I see to the list of leagues was in November 2013, where the number of leagues listed was reduced and the catch-all "top-level national league" was removed based on this discussion. The only change I found after the initial changes that were made during the first few months of this guideline was in January 2011, and it was reverted in May 2011. So I don't see any expansion of the leagues being listed, and in fact they were reduced in number. isaacl (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I was not referring to baseball, I was referring to sports guidelines in general. Anything done on one that waters down its credibility reflects on the rest of us when non-sport editors want to make the case that sports editors have low notability standards. Rikster2 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
        • OK, thanks for the clarification. Most complaints seem to centre around baseball, hockey, and association football, thus it's helpful to know which areas are specifically of concern so appropriate efforts can be focused in the right places. 15:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
          • Sorry for the confusion. As an FYI, I just picked a random MLB team (Cleveland) and did a Google News search on their two bullpen catchers. At first glance, neither appears to meet GNG (maybe a deeper search would show something different). I liken bullpen catchers to graduate assistants, video coordinators or S&C coaches in college basketball - they are "on the staff," but they aren't really full assistants. Rikster2 (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • If the team says they are a coach, they are a coach, if not then they aren't. However, regardless of whether they are or not, I do not think that bullpen catchers are coaches within the context that was intended for WP:BASEBALL/N. I think most people had in mind more traditional coaches like 1st/3rd base coaches, hitting/pitching coaches, bench and even bullpen coaches. So I think that even if they are coaches, bullpen catchers should probably be exempted from the notability presumption for coaches. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not a coach, must pass GNG Bullpen catchers are just bodies to catch pitchers when warming up. Some may be notable, but none should be inherently notable. Most of them have had no coaching experience and are typically minor leaguers not good enough to cut it. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. Even people who meet WP:BASE/N must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Epeefleche (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Must pass GNG as above. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Not coaches; must pass GNG - per Ravenswing and Rikster2, above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • must pass GNG I don't believe that bullpen catchers are what people have in mind when they talk about either major league players or coaches. Mdtemp (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Must pass GNG I've made myself clear in the recent AfDs. The coverage of most bullpen catchers is scarce to non-existent. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Must pass GNG, not auto-notable. This should be the obvious default position for anything unless convinced otherwise, and none of the arguments above tell me we should make an exception, especially when sourcing is scarce. Wizardman 17:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Must pass GNG bullpen catchers are not inherently notable and I agree with Rikster2's comparison to grad assistants, video coordinators and S&C coaches. I think the consensus is pretty clear and the discussion can probably be closed. Most of the contents of Category:Major League Baseball bullpen catchers will probably be disappearing over the next week or two. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Notability for teams[edit]

Is there a guideline for when teams are notable? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines says: "It is not intended that this guideline should apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." A WikiProject for a specific sport may have guidelines like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Notability. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FIFA and soccer international games[edit]

Why should FIFA be the only international association that sanctions international games? In other words, why should we limit notability to athletes who participated only in FIFA sanctioned international games, as opposed to all international games of national A teams?

We know that:

  1. National teams have played before FIFA existed (1904). As a matter of fact we have in wikipedia a slew of articles that have international games prior to 1904.
  2. National teams have played even among one another, although the international matches were not FIFA sanctioned.
  3. In order to be eligible for the national team, a very careful selection has been made, so this would not greatly increase the number of players who will need to be notable.

So let's think about making the following replacement:

... Players who have played in, managers who have managed in, and referees who have officiated any FIFA sanctioned senior international match... '


... Players who have played in, managers who have managed in, and referees who have officiated any senior international match... '

Thanks, --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

FIFA is the worldwide authority for organised football. Other authorities (such as the N.F.-Board) are not considered official by the IOC or wider world and their member teams are mainly non-recognised countries which also don't have formal selection criteria for players. For example, Sealand national football team has had many celebrities play for them in tournaments. See also Non-FIFA international football. Nanonic (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. FIFA is currently recognized by the IOC, but before 1904 FIFA did not exist.
  1. How do you solve notability for prior to 1904 international games? Can we reword the sentence for pre-1904 games?
  2. What about games that are currently scheduled by national teams outside of the FIFA calendar? If a player is selected for those games, but no longer is selected, the current wording would not allow for this player to be included.
  3. The non-recognized countries are not necessarily privy of a formal selection criteria. For instance Kosovo is allowed to play international games only if they are amateurial, but if you look at the Kosovo roster, you'll realize that very few players are amateurs: they all play in professinal leagues, or they are young promises, who will soon play in professional leagues. This entails a problem: for instance an editor, duly insists in removing from wikipedia Alban Bunjaku, who is a young player and hasn't played in professional leagues at all, but has played with Kosovo. Kosovo does have a national team in 2014 (and so did England before 1904), but players of neither team for the respective players (before 2014 and currently), would be eligible to be noticed in wikipedia. Can we make a rewording for certain national teams in the policy, for instance for national teams which predate FIFA, as well as for teams, such as Kosovo or Catalonia, which are allowed to play friendly international games by FIFA? --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Prior to 1904, there were very few international matches. Most of the major ones were between the Home Nations, and those were officially sanctioned by their FAs for the most part I believe. As for those that are allowed to play in friendly international games, then the guideline already permits that as it is worded right now, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Here's my answer to Bunjaktorollak's question: why should we? The purpose of NSPORTS isn't to set up a back door for otherwise non-notable athletes to qualify for articles, but to set forth circumstances under which athletes would likely meet the GNG. Teams which play exhibition matches (in any sport) often load up their rosters with fringe players who wouldn't otherwise appear on the regular rosters, and if those fringe players haven't managed to be discussed in reliable sources as per the GNG, then there's no reason to have articles on them. If Bunjaktorollak would care to demonstrate that there are a lot of players slipping through the cracks, who do meet the GNG, then I agree that the guideline needs revision. Otherwise, this a solution in search of a problem. Ravenswing 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Playing in any non FIFA-sanctioned game does not make you notable. As Luke says, before 1904 and the forming of FIFA there were very few games. The guideline is fine as it is. GiantSnowman 22:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Also note that this proposal is almost certainly linked to this comment and related AFD. Sigh. GiantSnowman 22:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • It certainly is linked and Alban Bunjaku will fall in the cracks because of a wikipolicy that I find incorrect in its exclusion. So will Mentor Zhdrella (already in Italian and Albanian wikipedias) and Kushtrim Mushica (already in the Italian wikipedia), who keep being deleted. The policy, as is, is excluding several national team players to be in the English Wikipedia. Sighing is not necessarily good logic. --Bunjaktorollak (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Alban Bunjaku will "fall in the cracks" not because the guidelines are wrong, but because he doesn't qualify for an article. Show us some evidence that he meets the GNG, and votes will change. Otherwise, I'm adamantly opposed to any watering down of the guideline for no better reason than there's a player you like who wouldn't meet it. Ravenswing 22:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The priority should be to demonstrate a subject meets WP:GNG, particularly when they fail a subject-specific guideline. Hack (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The examples I gave don't fail NFOOTY: all three of them have played for Kosovo. The wiki guideline is worded wickedly though: it says that the FIFA would need to sanction as if its vetting is necessary to confer legitimacy to NT A games: my opinion is that we don't need the FIFA part. However even if we accept the FIFA part, Kosovo's games are allowed by FIFA as per this source. No one has so far given a plausible explanation as to why the Kosovo players shouldn't be included in wikipedia because of the current guideline. Bunjaktorollak (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The definition of an international senior match is generally held to be what FIFA call a "Tier 1 International Match", also known as an "A International" match. This is a match between two FIFA member associations. As Kosovo is not a FIFA member association, any match would be a "Tier 2" or "Tier 3" match.[2] Hack (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It's been stated more than once, actually; you just don't accept the explanation. Your privilege, of course, but Wikipedia is run by consensus, and so far consensus seems to be running unanimously against your position. Ravenswing 07:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I'd support a change in the wording from a "senior international match" to a "tier 1 international match, as defined by FIFA", or something similar, just to prevent any confusion. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:57, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • No objection here to any such change. Ravenswing 11:38, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I concur with this proposed language clarification. -- Jkudlick tcs 13:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with this clarification as well. CRwikiCA talk 17:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ping didn't work but I saw this on my watchlist - I am fine with this proposed tightening of the wording, however when/if introduced it should include a link to a definition of a 'tier 1' game i.e. any FIFA-sactioned match between two senior international teams. GiantSnowman 15:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

  • I had every intention of adding that link in. I'll go and make the change now. :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)