Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

List of Pro Sports Teams considered the worst

I first asked this in the treehouse, and it was suggested I post the question here. Considering that we have pages dedicated to music and movies considered the worst, should/could we do one for sports teams. There are many viable well researched articles that we can use. Some teams, like the 1899 Cleveland Spiders were so terrible, that there are books and documentaries dedicated to them. I feel there is an interest in this topic and would like feedback. I do say that if this page goes forward, I'd like to seek out help. I've never started a page from scratch before. Sportsfan1976

This sounds like an interesting idea. I am also new to editing and am contributing to current pages as there seem to be lots of what I see as fundamental holes. As long as the execution is somewhat neutral with the best as well I don't see an issue.DannyHatcher (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Implementation of consensus infobox changes for current seasons

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_172#Designating_current_seasons_in_infoboxes, I read clear consensus to use text rather than images to designate the current season. I went ahead and made the change at {{Infobox award}}, but since I'm not a sports person, I'll leave the implementation for sports templates such as {{Infobox football league}} to you all here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added a DNAU tag to this thread; feel free to remove it once you have finished implementation. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

College Sports

Has there been a discussion about a sub-task force around "College Sports"? Maybe even another project? I thought there was one? Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a separate WikiProject for college football, but apart from that, I haven't seen other college sport project/task force. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjquinn id, what article are you thinking of, for example? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just wanting a place to send people to consolidate conversations about College sports templates (Teams, Players, Seasons, Stadiums), Categories, et al. It seems horrifically dissimilar across multiple state projects... Standards on which sports are included, etc. Maybe just a Task Force? (and "No", I do not want to run it...) - Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants game article feedback

I have just put an article up in the main space for the first time and am looking for feedback. A user has proposed it for deletion because of notability concerns, but I really feel that the game was important even if it was only played during Week 2 of the regular NFL season. As of right now, I would still love to add a game statistics table, some pictures, and fans' reactions to the outcome. However, I want to take the notability concerns seriously and would love to hear whether people agree that it should be deleted! Thank you:) Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants Game September 2021 Pippalenderking (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Unremarkable regular season game with no significance. Does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT" says it all. The level of notability that would raise an unexceptional regular season game between two non-contenders to article threshold would have to be beyond astonishing: not even with a stadium collapse, an epic riot or a promotion gone infamously sour (each of which had major repercussions that stretched out over years) were the underlying games more than mere mentions. Nor is that level of detail what you'd find even in newspaper coverage by the respective hometown papers. The best you would get is a small section in the respective season articles of the teams; take a look at 2020_New_York_Giants_season#Game_summaries for examples. Ravenswing 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Judo

I've suggested on WikiProject Martial arts, residing under this WikiProject, to establish a WikiProject Judo to discuss and formulate Manuals of Style for articles relating to judo. For example, MoS' for judoka, judo competitions etc. Hoping for your participation. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Country by Sports Representation

This beastly thing was created in 2016 and has basically been abandoned since. Is it something that ought to be kept and perhaps reworked, or should I take it to AfD? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Goodness. I think you could even get away with a PROD if you're lucky, given that it's an orphan. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Gah, nuke it from orbit ... Ravenswing 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

By your leave, gentlemen, PROD missile launched. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lifesaving

I am after wider input to further develop the article List of world records in life saving, a sport with a history of more than 100 years and recognized by the IOC since 1996. Wikipedia:Make_stubs suggests: "So, you just wrote a killer new article, and you see lots of red links. You're surprised, because these topics would probably satisfy the notability guidelines and Wikipedia seems to have articles on every single topic imaginable. Instead of letting that red link sit there doing nothing: Make it a stub! Replacing red links with stubs helps to grow the encyclopedia..." Yet, all the stubs I created have been removed by @Fram: who quoted 'unproven notability of the individuals' and 'unreliability of sources' as reasons.
I am not suggesting that all sports should benefit from a similar presence on Wikipedia, but this project neither should carelessly feed the vicious cycle of [1] increasing the disproportionate amount of meaningless visibility that some sports already get, while [2] preventing other sports, that receive almost no attention, to grow.
I argue that a world record proves notability - at least in that specific sport environment - because the person has accomplished something that nobody else did in the history of the sport. Regarding sources, there might be articles published on local newspapers, but the most reliable source we should look for is in fact the governing body of that particular sport. Creiamo (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• And my response is that how in the merry hell is Wikipedia "preventing other sports to grow?" It is not our job to become cheerleaders for obscure "sports" or competitions, or somehow to regulate the amount of visibility certain sports get. It is our job to reflect what the world notices and cares about. My longstanding stance is that I will support any proposed notability guideline where 90%-95%+ of the athletes who meet it can be demonstrated to meet the GNG.

  I appreciate your passion for this competition, but all NSPORTS notability criteria are underpinned by the likelihood that those who meet them can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 20:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Ravenswing: The world notices what's in the news (or in a Google search) and nobody is asking you to become a cheerleader, but just to be objective. Athletes like Lucrezia Fabretti, who are the best in their sport (which by the way counts thousands of participants in multiple countries) meet the GNG much more than literally the hundreds of American football players who appear on Wikipedia for having played briefly and sporadically in minor leagues. By making these decisions we clearly impede the trajectory of a minor sport out of 'obscurity' and at the same time promote the extreme visibility of a 'local sport' that few people follow outside of the USA. Creiamo (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• In which case you are badly misunderstanding what the GNG is. The GNG doesn't measure the relative importance of a subject in a tiny, obscure sport that only a handful of people have ever heard of (however much that tiny handful might be widely scattered). It is based on whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources. Maybe this is not what you would want Wikipedia to enshrine as a notability standard, but it is what it does enshrine as one, and knee-jerk prejudice against the US does not change that. Ravenswing 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding importance onto the articles

Hi all. I am fairly new to editing and would like to start contributing a little more to this project but apart from the subs and start pages I am not sure where to start. I have noticed there are lots of unassessed articles which I can help with but having importance on the articles would help with priority. What do you all think? (I don't know how to add it) DannyHatcher (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, @DannyHatcher:, and thanks for your offer to help! And honestly, for my money, diving into subs and start pages are some of the best places to start. Many new editors want to create new articles, but they don't often have a good handle on the pertinent notability criteria, and get frustrated when those articles are deleted. Nor would I bother in your boots with assessing unassessed articles right now -- that's pretty subjective at the best of times, and doesn't hugely improve things.

  One good thing to do is seek out the Wikiprojects which deal with your favorite sports; they'll have editors that can give specifics on what most needs doing. They may also have lists of the articles that most need help; for instance, the ice hockey project has Hockey Mountain, a comprehensive list of every member of the Hockey Hall of Fame and other notables, with their assessments, so anyone can pick out the stubs and Start-level articles and go to work.

  In any event, please feel free to hit my talk page if you need any assistance or advice. Ravenswing 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Combining same sport finals

I am going through some of the event pages and have noticed there are articles for each year of finals for certain sports. I was thinking of combining them all together in a table article. The references in the pages seem to be the same website just a different search. Thoughts ? DannyHatcher (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the length of each page, and the number of entries. If they're all stubs basically saying "on X date in Y venue teams A and B played each other, and the score was M" then sure, they could probably be merged all into one. If each page is more than 3-4 sections, though, you might run into bloat issues.

Basically, "it depends" is the best I can give you without more specifics. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah some of the events have have descriptions of the game which are not cited but most just have team a played team b and x venue with y score. I am going through them and most are stubs. DannyHatcher (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sporting goods store

I have added sporting goods store to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports. Utfor (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is active in this project?

Hello all, from what I can see most of the people working in this project are doing so because they are part of a more specific sport project. Is there anyone working in just this project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyHatcher (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There aren't really all that many articles that only apply to the main sports wikiproject. I've always thought about this as being a suitable venue for things effecting lots of different sports projects. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: that makes sense. I have noticed most of the articles are either sport event stats or are in other projects. I will have a look around, thanks for sharing. DannyHatcher (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

CFL team division titles

Having looked at the sections on division winners at East Division (CFL) & West Division (CFL). I don't think the current team numbers are adding up correctly. Also, not certain what I'm suppose to list as division champions at each of the nine team articles. Should I list regular season division champions? or playoff division champions? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

IIHF: Czechia, not Czech Republic

If the 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships is any indication. The IIHF has begun using Czechia, instead of Czech Republic for that country's team entries, beginning with the 2022 tournaments. Should we reflect this, in those 2022 IIHF tournaments? GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we should not. You have said that you are not anymore concerned about this subject, and you subsequently starting this another topic. We now have two same discussions resolving same topic at the same time in WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#IIHF:Czechia. WP:COMMONNAME says that we name country according to discussion, which resolved common name as the Czech Republic in Talk:Czech. IIHF is independent legal association as any others. "Czechia" is for example also used by Basketball team member of FIBA, which is on Wikipedia still concern of WP:COMMONNAME resolved through consensus rule. If even United Nations usage of "Czechia" is not purpose, to usage of "Czechia" in international policy articles and WP:COMMONNAME disentangle results is used on Wikipedia, then some organizations usage of language cannot be pattern for change of common same name usage of this word. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just bringing this up here [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ummmm ... @GoodDay:, on exactly how many talk pages are you going to argue this issue? I pinged the naming conventions talk page not because it needed to be discussed there as well, but because they might have some insights for us. Ravenswing 19:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Here or WP:HOCKEY will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Consistency or lack there of, in handling pandemic cancelled tournaments or events

Should we have an across-the-board agreement on how to handle such articles about cancelled tournaments, events etc. Should such articles be deleted, re-directed or left alone. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• We already do: it's called the GNG. Such events that can be shown to meet the GNG stay; those that can't are better redirected. Ravenswing 03:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Indeed. There are clearly events that are notable enough that they deserve an article even if they didn't take place, some where they should get a mention in a parent article, and others where we don't need a mention anywhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Most don't meet GNG in my opinion. Redirect is better than deleting, as it means it can be categorised, and people can find some information about the cancelled event. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The Boat Race 2020 for example is an event that was cancelled, but clearly notable. Realistically, we shouldn't be creating articles before they meet GNG anyway, so there shouldn't be much to redirect/delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Most reoccuring events that previously would meet GNG likely still meet GNG after being cancelled because finding three independent sources talking about how they were cancelled that year would likely not be difficult. At least that would be the case for the below mentioned Memorial Cup. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The re-direct method definitely preferable to the delete method. For example, as it should be, we've got 2020 Spengler Cup & 2021 Spengler Cup redirecting to Spengler Cup. Likewise, we've got 2020 Memorial Cup & 2021 Memorial Cup redirecting to Memorial Cup. In very few cases where such cancelled recurring events/organisations that don't have an article? Such articles should be created as re-directs toward the main article. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Hue}}

Template:Hue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. Is this coloring scheme still in use? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Word order in article titles

Notice the following two examples:

• Argentina men's national junior handball team
• Argentina men's junior national softball team

Which article has a better word order? We should rename one of them and the whole category, too. Maiō T. (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither. We go by WP:COMMONNAME, so they don't need to be consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides youth softball, I've only seen "national junior". In softball, the other way around is more common? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have googled today and it looks something like this:

"national junior" softball team — 250,000 results

"junior national" softball team — 150,000 results

So I'd like to rename those softball articles. I think we should use default (consistent) article titles for every kind of sport in Wikipedia. Maiō T. (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And the reason why we don't impose unnecessary "consistency" over every sport is that customary usages vary hugely, not only between sports, but between leagues, nations and sanctioning bodies. Ravenswing 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And languages. We name these articles the same (or as close as we can) in the same way that the organisation does. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Equestrian" at the Summary Olympics

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

Could you give an example of such a page move? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I see the OP has moved Equestrian at the Summer Olympics to Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics without discussion (which is rarely a sensible thing to do), and I assume they want to do the same for all the other pages like Equestrian at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like it would make more sense to call it "Equestrian events at..."; colloquially (and somewhat anecdotally) I don't think I've ever heard it called anything other than "equestrian". Primefac (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

These would not be uncontroversial moves so discussion is needed. There are far better options than your proposal, e.g. "Equestrian sports at...". The issue also goes beyond the Olympics, to include most (if not all) other "equestrian at multi-sport event" articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, an RM has been started at Talk:Equestrian at the Summer Olympics. Please feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The RM has been procedurally closed; the Rfc below replaces it. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Current options

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

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

Survey

• Oppose "Equestrianism" as this does not appear to used in reliable sources at all. Support either "Equestrian" (i.e. no change) or "Equestrian events" (which seem to be about equally used) or "Equestrian sports" which is used but less commonly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • For clarity, "Equestrian at..." (no change) is my first preference, following by "Equestrian events at..." in second and "Equestrian sports" in third place. I oppose "Equestrianism at". Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Equestrian... per WP:OFFICIALNAME (Olympic website) and about equal usage with "Equestrian events" per WP:COMMONNAME (G-News hits). Weak Support for Equestrian events... as it is used and is technically better grammar (though I'm not sure anyone is actually getting confused). Oppose Equestrianism as it seems to be rarely used in reference to the sport itself (G-News) and not used officially anywhere. Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose (Summoned by bot) – I came into this with the presumption that I would want it moved to something, based on the same grammar objections listed in the #Discussion, as this usage of the term looks awkward to me, but maybe that's just because I'm not a fan of, er, um, [grits teeth] "equestrian". My personal preference is for equestrian events, and some preliminary searches turn up a slight preference for that, but it appears to be within the margin of error. I'm willing to change my WP:!vote if a convincing argument is put forth for one of the alternatives based on the data, but given the rough equivalence of the alternatives, I don't see sufficient evidence for doing so now, so I vote for no move. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Equestrian events at or equestrian sports at, for clarity. Some mostly insider sources sometimes use equestrian as a noun, for shorthand to other insiders, but it would be yet another WP:Specialized-style fallacy to impose that on the encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support for Equestrian events at... or Equestrian sports at.... (to match with Category:Equestrian sports competitions), with preference for the second option (to match the categories and also since these are indeed "sports" so "events" seems a bit vague) - as I originally said, the current format is just bad English. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Either Equestrian at or Equestrian Sports/events at... Not sure there is anything wrong with the current wording, but I don't like to proposed Equestrianarism Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Lee Vilenski: What is wrong with "Equestrian at the Summer Olympics" is the same thing that would be wrong with "Exceptional at the Summer Olympics" (i.e. you can't have an adjective without a noun which it modifies - so while you could have, to continue the example, "Exceptional weather events at the Summer Olympics", the other option is obviously bad English). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  The problem with that argument is that "equestrian" is a noun (as well as an adjective). When it used as a noun, as in "equestrian at the Olympics" it is perfectly grammatical. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Equestrian can be a noun in some specific meanings ("a rider or performer on horseback"), but that's clearly not the meaning which is employed here (otherwise it would be talking about the people who competed in equestrian events/sports, and it would still be an error as it should be plural, i.e. "Equestrians at the [x]"). This is surely not the only example of a word that can be both a noun or an adjective (the other that immediately comes to mind is "fair" - with radically unrelated meanings; or "pale" and "The Pale". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what your point is, because usage in reliable sources clearly shows that the sport is often known as "Equestrian". Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Which sources? Please do show. Additionally, I'll note that the top category is Category:Equestrian sports (i.e. not "Equestrian") and that the main article of that category, although broader than sports, is Equestrianism (not "Equestrian"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  From the first page of a google search for "Equestrian at the" -Wikipedia: Radio Times, IOC, Equestrian Australia, NBC, The Guardian, ESPN. I stopped looking at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  And advancing to the last page of results shows that there are about 120 results for that query, but due to the query wording, there are false positives such as "And who's the one general who competed as an equestrian at the Olympics?", "Equestrian at the Box", "A 411 on all things equestrian at the Pan Am Games.", "She has also represented Intermont Equestrian at the Zone 4 Championships", etc. Comparing with the last page of "Equestrian events at the -wikipedia" shows 137 results with fewer or no false positives, so there appears to be a slight preference for the latter, but I haven't compared the reliability of the sources in each result set. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Absolute no for "Equestrianism." I've never heard that term used when I've been around Dressage and 3-day Eventing. Best to leave it as is or at worst use "Equestrian events." Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Preference for Equestrian sports at... or Equestrian events at..., but no change also seems fine. Oppose "Equestrianism at...", for obvious reasons. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Equestrian sports per base category, as well as the fact that the definition of "equestrian" as a noun refers to tbe rider and not the sport according to Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins,Dictionary.com... These are the first hits I get on Google, not intentionally selected to say what I want. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Equestrian events or equestrian sports seem best options to me. Equestrianism isn't used in any sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Equestrian at, because that seems to be the most common way to put it, and is more concise than "equestrian events/sports" which resembles hypercorrection, i.e. an attempt to "rectify" the adjective-as-a-noun back to the adjective (possibly, just a thought). However, I can support even the latter. I strongly oppose only "equestrianism". tw^sabin 21:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• Equestrian at, per several above, but weak support #2 and weak oppose #3 - I state this only in case #1 ends up ruled out, to say they are my preferences to #4, which I firm oppose (i.e. don't really take this as a support for #2). But I will explain my lack of preference for #3, it is simple and obvious: "equestrian" is the sport, the different aspects of it are events. It would be like calling the different aspects of the cycling "sports" or the different aspects of athletics "sports" (when we have already chosen to make it clear that "athletics" is the sport.) Kingsif (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kingsif makes a good point. If we are OK with "Athletics at..." (a nouned adjective via usage), then why would be opposed to "equestrian"? Yosemiter (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Can I also offer weak support for another option, Riding at, based on the standard at the Modern pentathlon article, where the former cross-country equestrian event and the current show-jumping equestrian event are both listed under "Riding". Kingsif (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Except that "swimming", "athletic", etc... are actually nouns according to existing sources [and Wikipedia is supposed to follow such usage] (Good dictionaries - [2][3][4] - all have something like "Swimming - the act, art, or sport of one that swims"); whereas equestrian in this context cannot be a noun unless one decides to treat it as some form of neologism ([5][6][7] - all basically give a single noun meaning which can be summarised as "a rider on horseback" - nothing to the with the sports, although you need an equestrian to ride an equine if you want to take part in equestrian sports), since it clearly is not referring to that. Other works of an encyclopedic nature, ex. [8]; use "Equestrian sports". Even specialist sources like US Equestrian Federation use "Equestrian sports" when referring to the topic in running text. It makes little sense to impose a form which is grammatically wrong. "Equestrian" in this context is an adjective ("of, relating to, or featuring horseback riding"), and adjectives without a noun to modify are lonely, to say the least. You can't have "Great in Rome", although you can have "Great historical monuments in Rome". Similarly one shouldn't have "Equestrian at the Olympics"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • You, and I assume whomever else complains, is treating this like we (Wikipedia) are/get to come up with/decide the name of the sport as we use it. But we do not. We have a standard format and put the name of the sport, as decided by the appropriate sporting authorities, in that format. The Olympics just call it "Equestrian" ([9], [10]), or "Riding" in the context of Modern pentathlon. Just because the proper noun isn't also a common noun in this case, doesn't matter in the slightest. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• There was a vote based on an WP:OFFICIALNAME exception, however I don't see one listed in the specific-topic naming conventions such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Olympics), so I don't think WP:OFFICIALNAME applies in this case. Or is there one I'm missing? Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Mathglot: I was referencing OFFICIALNAME secondary to COMMONNAME as there did not appear to be a distinct common usage between "equestrian" and "equestrian events" when independent media was covering the events themselves. In cases where there is no clear common name, other determinations may be used to form a consensus as stated in WP:COMMONNAME: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Proposing using an OFFICIALNAME is a valid alternative as long as it is one of the common names. The Olympics calls the events as simply "Equestrian" as in their events recaps here and here (using statements like "equestrian competition", "successful equestrian Olympic campaign", "equestrian's top five moments"; the last clearly using equestrian as a noun). Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  @Yosemiter: (edit conflict) thanks for your comment. I ended up agreeing with your conclusion, although not quite with how you arrived at it; but this may be a distinction without a difference. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• User:RandomCanadian and User:Lee Vilenski: it was not entirely clear whether your unbolded comments at the top of this #Discussion section were intended as !votes or not—it kind of looks like they were. Because there were bolded comments in the Discussion section that clearly were votes, I subsequently created a #Survey section (as is usual in Rfc's that have separate Discussion sections) and moved those two votes there (and added my own). If your comments at the top of this section are your "WP:!votes", could you please repeat your vote in the #Survey section above? If they were just discussion comments, no action needs to be taken. This is so that the closer will be clear on what everyone's intention is here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed that for you. I don't like the strict separation (and sometimes even rigidity of thought) the two section format usually entails, but if it's bene forced on the discussion, might as well make sure it makes sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note to closer: because of the wording of the Rfc, I interpret some of the support and oppose votes as being in favor of the same outcome. Please take care when interpreting them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

  We edit-conflicted (I think) but I added some options so that future !votes may be slightly more clear. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Note that I have added a #Current options section above the main survey, mainly to indicate the front-runners of the options and hopefully make it easier for uninvolved participants responding to the RFC to "get" what is being proposed. If other options become heavily favoured, please feel free to amend the list. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Kind-of as a response to what Yosemiter jumped off from my !vote, I think any change in the style would be wrong, just as a deviation from the naming standards. To wit, nobody would argue for "Swimming events at" over just "Swimming at", and, while it may be awkward, "Equestrian" is the sport... we should be naming the sport (e.g. "Swimming at"), not describing the method of the events it encompasses (e.g. a comparative "Swimming pool events at"), per the naming standards of all the other articles. While you could say that, okay, "Swimming events" means "events within the sport of Swimming", this RfC has suggested "Equestrian events" not as a kind of disambiguation (though what "Equestrian at [Sports Event]" would otherwise mean I don't know) but as a grammatical alternative, i.e. not "events within the sport of Equestrian", but "events that are undertaken on horseback". And that, I think, would perhaps create more confusion, if readers are going through all the sport articles (perhaps for their country), wondering why sentence-style has only been used for one sport. There's also an argument that, if choosing to describe, it would suggest the scope is broader, i.e. modern pentathlon is not an event in the sport of Equestrian, but it is an equestrian sport with an equestrian event. Kingsif (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a new proposal at the RfC on NSPORTS the under "Subproposal 8" subsection to Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. and Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist". Your thoughts would be appreciated there. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)