Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WikiProject Sports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Athlete[edit]

Proposal here to restore content to athlete (currently a disambiguation page) after having been forked between "sportsperson" and athletics in an attempt to change it from an American English article to a British one. — LlywelynII 09:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WikiProject Sports. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Athletics#Relevant_Rfc_at_Talk:Sportsperson.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking the cue from the above IP user, I'll bring the discussion here. I have no objection to the move to athlete. It is common throughout hundreds of necessary disambiguations of participants in athletics. But that is all that was discussed in the RfC. What has occurred is further specifications, changing athletes into very focused specialties, even when not necessary. Let me define: Steve Smith requires specificity for three different individuals: Steve Smith (pole vaulter) (born 1951), US pole vaulter, Steve Smith (US high jumper) (born 1971), US high jumper, Steve Smith (British high jumper) (born 1973), British high jumper. Mike Powell as the world record holder in the long jump for more than 2 decades, I would argue should not need disambiguation, overriding an advocate of radio automation, an obscure rugby union player and two equally obscure cricketers. If he does need disambiguation, one notch to Mike Powell (athlete) should suffice. However the current change was to make it even more specific long jumper. OK, Powell is known worldwide for the long jump, though in high school he was a high jumper, he's easier because he is so well known. By throwing this extra layer of specificity, we are opening up a wide swath of potential names one individual could be named on wikipedia and for far more obscure individuals. Instead of having a naming convention, we have chaos, with multiple articles for the same individual that would later need to be detected and merged. I had this kind of situation happen to me last night in an almost unrelated subject. I spent my time cleaning up an article created by another user (coincidentally on this talk page for a different question). In the process of the clean up, I discovered the same article produced from the same sources has been in existence for almost 5 years. Because it did not follow the same naming habits as the other matching articles, it wasn't found, wasn't linked into the logical group--the wrong name created a rogue article. By allowing unnecessary and more random specificity, we are headed to the same problem so large it may never be cleaned up entirely. Do we need to make a formal hierarchy? If a disambiguation is needed for a track and field participant, we use (athlete) first before specifying specialization or year of birth? Is athlete the wrong word? Anther change this user caused was Andy Turner (athlete), a brit, into Andy Turner (track and field athlete) to disambiguate vs a footballer. We've discussed in several RfCs that track and field is not a common phrase in England, so why force it onto an English hurdler? Trackinfo (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
According to the recent move request at [[talk:athlete] (formerly talk:sportsperson) "athlete" in British English means "sportsperson", so in cases where there are multiple people with the same name who are sportspeople, the disambiguator "athlete" is insufficient to identify the subject. The article at athlete is the sportsperson article.
From Andy Turner, we can see that there's a footballer who is British, who is named "Andy Turner", making "athlete" ambiguous, so that needs a different disambiguator. I have no problem moving it to Andy Turner (hurdler), "track and field" was chosen due to competition in multiple track events (ie. sprint races, long jump), leading to Andy Turner (track athlete) or Andy Turner (track and field athlete)
For Mike Powell (long jumper) it does not suffice to use "athlete". In the first place, he is American, and in U.S. English, "athlete" means 'sportsperson' first, and has for decades. There are multiple sportspeople named Mike Powell. Just look at various "Athlete of the Year" awards from the United States, where it is not restricted to track and field or running (ie. Big Ten Athlete of the Year etc). We can change Mike Powell (long jumper) to Mike Powell (track and field athlete) per your desire to recognize the high jumping.
-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The (athlete) specification is spread throughout wikipedia. Its been going on before I got here by a lot more editors than me. I have only followed the pattern established by others. My assumption has been it was based on the British interpretation of Athletics, as duplicated in the world governing body International Association of Athletics Federations. We did have a discussion that broke that down to athletics sport. You are saying that is not so. Lets get some British people to speak to that point. Obviously here in the USA we use track and field which is wordy. The previous discussion established that track and field is an unfamiliar phrase outside of North America. (Track) or (field) for that matter starts getting too specific, as I suggest (runner) or (long jumper) are. If we need to have a new primary designation for disambiguation, then that is a greater discussion we need to have and establish a consensus replacement. We need to hear from a lot of people, not just you and me. What gets dangerous is when you and possibly a few other people just make it up. That creates rogue articles that get lost in search engines. That creates confusion and duplicated articles. You've already done that to a few dozen articles. Lets stop that and establish a word that works for USA, England, Russia, Japan, China, Brazil, Arab countries any place that has duplication of the same names and participants in the same sport. And when we do make that decision, then we will need to rename several hundred, possibly thousand articles to fit the format. Trackinfo (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion occurred at Talk:Sportsperson as part of the recent requested move, where British editors pointed out that "athlete" means sportsperson in British English, making "athlete" ain inappropriate disambiguator in British English to separate different types of sportspeople. "Athlete" has long been an improper disambiguator, ever since "athlete" was made a disambiguation page. Now that it is the page for sportsperson, "athlete" only makes sense when there are no other sportspeople with the same name. The IAAF only deals with its own purview, not the entire world of sport, so can only talk in context of its own sport, not the relationship between its field and all other sports. It's not just you and me having this discussion, as it was discussed by a number of editors at talk:sportsperson, several of which pointed out that "athlete" was an improper disambiguator. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue that the current disambiguator might not be ideal. We have been down that road before. Your discussion did not settle what the correct disambiguator should be. My contention is that specific word (please lets keep it to a single word) was not discussed or settled in your discussion. Your random making words up as you go is not proper. We need to settle what that word will be. We need to hear from more people to settle this issue. I suggest these back room discussions need to have a minimum of involved people discuss such a massive change. When we do make a decision, then we can assign a bot to take care of renaming thousands of articles with consistency. Until it is settled, don't create new problems we will have to backtrack to find. Trackinfo (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I resent your accusation I "made words up". The words I suggested exist in the real world. I already indicated that at WT:ATHLETICS when it was said one of the words didn't exist, and I showed that it did, in multiple different dialects of English, both American and Commonwealth. The discussion at Talk:Sportsperson indicated that "(athlete)" should be replaced by the next level of descent, so not to use a single word at all, but more specialized words. "athlete" would be usable only when there were no other sportspeople with the same name. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
  • General practice for disambiguation handles for athletics competitors has been (a) use "(athlete)" if no other sportspeople already exist with the same name, (b) if another sportsperson exists use the specific athletics event profession (e.g. hurdler, sprinter, etc). I think most people are happy with that, as "(athlete)" works for both the broad and narrow definitions (in the absence of other sportspeople).
I don't see any bad will in these actions, but this whole discussion has suffered from a lack of knowledgeable input. The move to Andy Turner (track and field athlete) was a laborious result that has no basis on how such articles are usually disambiguated. A handle should always disambiguate as simply as possible, as with Andy Turner (hurdler) in this case.
The move to Athlete was similarly insufficient in thought (one supporter couldn't even think of an oppose reason despite one being on one of the very pages that were being moved). That said, I would support a move back to sportsperson and an expansion of the article scope to cover that idea, rather than only the more narrow definition of "athlete". The idea of a "sportsperson" has grown much more complex in the last century or so. I don't understand why you would want to have your sportsperson article exclude those who often fall foul of the athlete definition (e.g. racing drivers, snooker players, darts players, horse riders, coaches, referees etc. etc). An article covering the roles of sportspeople in general is clearly of more use. In this instance, I think the fault lies with the fact that so little effort has been put into this article in the last five years... SFB 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

One-celled bracket templates[edit]

Do we have any Tournament bracket templates that display team names without numerical scores? Probably it is equivalent to have versions of the templates {{Round16}}, {{Round8}}, etc, that display single rather than double cells at each position if one of the two cells would be empty.

Viewing some of the 63 16-Team bracket templates, for example, I find designs with two-, three-, and four-celled positions evidently sized for team names and one-, two-, or three-part scores. And greater variety, such as four-celled positions designed for numerical seeds, team names, and two-part scores (Template:Round16-2legs). --P64 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

MaxPreps as a source[edit]

How reliable and up to date is the MaxPreps website for information? Specifically I'm creating pages on various United States high school athletic leagues and conferences and I want to know if the information I'm pulling from that website is correct. Thanks.--Prisencolinensinainciusol (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sasuke (TV series)[edit]

I've suggested that Sasuke (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) be split apart into a set of articles. The article "Sasuke (TV series)" is currently over 100kB, so is very large. (it is even larger than the recommended max size for archives) For the discussion see Talk:Sasuke (TV series) -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sports by year categories before 1850[edit]

Hi WikiProject Sports. I notice that the subcategories of Category:Sports by country and year, Category:Years in European sport, Category:British sport by year and (apart from a handful of exceptions) Category:English sport by year only go back as far as 1850. Was there a deliberate decision that the pre-1850 categories should not be created, or is it just the case that nobody has created the pre-1850 categories yet ? Non-empty subcategories could be created all the way back to 1726 (= the earliest subcategory of Category:Cricket in England by year). I'm happy to create the categories (and any relevant parent categories), but I didn't want to invest the effort if there had been a decision that these categories should not be created. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there was an explicit discussion, but looking at those years in cricket categories, I see no value in categories with only one entry and no hope of growth. Creating another category tree that will contain only one sub-category (cricket), which itself will contain only one article (season) is not beneficial. If anything, all of those cricket categories from before 1850 should be merged. Resolute 13:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Batista"[edit]

The usage and primary topic of "Batista" is under discussion at talk:Dave Batista -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)