Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Sports Notability[edit]

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) 03:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles[edit]

A request has been made at User:Xenobot/R#WP:BADM to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on these categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles. This is to be done primarily to assist with the referencing of unreferenced Biographies of Living People.

To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

The-Pope (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Task complete. 636 edits. –xenotalk 03:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice[edit]

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. --Geneviève (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Badminton at the Olympics template[edit]

I posted the following message on the template talk page for the Template: Badminton at the Summer Olympics, but I am cross-posting it here because the other page can easily go unnoticed.

I noticed on the template that the 1972 Olympic appearance is referred to as a demonstration. The term traditionally used when referring to sports and events that are organized by an OCOG, but are not awarded official medals. However, the 1988 appearance is listed as an exhibition. I have never seen that terminology used anywhere related to non-official Olympic sports. Does anyone know of any official sources that can confirm the use of the work exhibition? Otherwise, the template should be changed to show demonstration for both 1972 and 1988.--SargentIV (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Also replied there: According to the Official Report (section 11.26), Four sports, namely table tennis, taekwondo, badminton and bowling, were newly added to the Olympic schedule for the first time in Seoul. Table tennis was an official sport, taekwondo was a demonstration sport, and badminton and bowling were exhibition sports. ... Olympic demonstration sports are eligible for the same status of the conduct of competitions as official sports, but the IOC is required to decide on whether competition schedules should be included in the official Games schedule. Exhibition sports are staged in ways much the same as demonstration sports, but their schedules are not added to the official Olympic schedule. For this reason, the adoption of an exhibition sport does not require the approval of the IOC. All the SLOOC was required to do was determine the exhibition sport and to report the decision to the IOC.Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Medals Boxes[edit]

This isn't a problem, but it's something that should be addressed at some point. I believe we need to get a standard order regarding the Medals Boxes. believe that the most prestigious competitions be listed first and I'd like to reach an agreement on a descending order of badminton competitions. I propose that Medals Boxes be order like this:

  • Olympic Games
  • World Championships
  • Sudirman Cup
  • Thomas/Uber Cup
  • Continental Championships (Asian Games, All-Africa, European Championships, Pan-American Games)
  • Sub-continental (South Asian Games, South American Championships, Mediterranean Games)
  • Junior World Championships

I am undecided on the Commonwealth Games. I believe those medals should be listed either above or below the Continental Championships. I am also not sure about the Youth Olympics which could go with Junior competitions or closer to the top. --MorrisIV (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, Thomas/Uber Cup should be more priority than Sudirman Cup, because it is like a World Cup, Commonwealth Games is a global games, should above Continental Championships, while Sub-continental and Junior Championships, i don't it is necessary to list it. How about you? --Aleenf1 11:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't feel particularly strong either way regarding the order of the Thomas/Uber Cup and Sudirman Cup. (Although I do feel that the Sudirman Cup is a World Cup type event just with Mixed Team and not restricted by gender). Regarding the Commonwealth Games, it is a global competition, but like Continental Championships it's also exclusive, just politically exclusive rather than geographically exclusive. I agree that Sub-continental games don't need to be listed, but there are several medals boxes that do list them so I wanted to include their placement in this conversation.--MorrisIV (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
We want to see the significant coverage, which the importance of the tournament is a major consideration, for me just fine without sub-continental and junior championships. --Aleenf1 16:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To go back to this, currently I think the medal table on Lee Chong Wei's page is ordered correctly. The Asian games 3rd because it's once every 4 years and outside of the world champs and Olympics its about the biggest title a player can obtain, I wouldn't equate it to the euro champs, that would be the Asian championships. I wouldn't bother with the sub continental and junior worlds but if they already exist then they can go at the bottom. Some pages have events such as super series and grand prix's listed in the medals table, I would suggest they should be moved to an achievements table in the main content. If we could get some sort of agreement I would be happy to edit some of the current pages and make sure future pages conform. Nines11 (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Super Series and Grand Prix medals should not be listed, those tournaments are far too regular.--MorrisIV (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Indiscriminate linking of names[edit]

At Maltese National Badminton Championships I removed the links to the names of the players that had been added by another user. This is an excellent example of why links should not be added indiscriminately:

  • Almost all of the links were dead. The only live links were misdirects -- one was to 19th century US President A. Jackson, another to Godwin Grech who was an Australian Treasury official involved in a scandal, and the third to Kenneth Wain, a Maltese philosopher who does not appear to play Badminton.
  • It is extremely unlikely that articles are going to be created for all or even a few of the Maltese Badminton players in this article. Links can be added if articles are created.
  • There was not a single link to a valid article about these people, so the reader is no worse off because of the removal of these links.
  • Many of the links use initials instead of first names, so even if an article were created, it probably wouldn't show up in this article unless the creator though ahead to create a redirect, and few do that.

User:Florentyna has restored these links (avoiding the misdirects) explaining "This is not the way we are doing in the badminton project." I do not find this to be a convincing argument. And I have found no evidence on the project page or talk archives that this has ever been discussed.

She/he has also suggested that I look at the German Wikipedia. It may be that things are done differently in the German Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that English Wikipedia should adopt the German approach.

User:Florentyna has offered no reasonable argument for indiscriminate linking. I would be interested in hearing what other members of this project think. Ground Zero | t 10:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I support you for non full name links removal, but not the badminton players with full name. Wikipedia does not prohibit any "red links" which useful to indicate that article still not existed or not created, even think to add it back once it create, it will not be a fine job to identify which article needs it. For redirect, just do smartly, not simply get rid of it. --Aleenf1 08:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have found the relevant style guide for this question. WP:REDLINK says:
"A red link, like this one, signifies a link to a page that does not exist in Wikipedia. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. One study conducted in 2008 showed that red links helped Wikipedia grow.[1] However, rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles.
"Articles should not have red links to topics that are unlikely ever to have an article, such as a celebrity's romantic interest (who is not a celebrity in his or her own right, and thus lacks notability). Red links should not be made to every chapter in a book nor should they be made to deleted articles—but one may link to the title of a deleted article if one intends to write an article about an entirely different topic that has the same title."
Since the article in question is a list article, the redlinks should be moved to the project page, or to a subpage of the project. Ground Zero | t 10:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Is not wrong to have red links in article, even though they may not created. So they are many article have such practice, i don't see any concerns for this. --Aleenf1 12:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the general guidance on redlinks, but the Style guide offers specific guidance in the case of lists. In the specific case to which I am referring, there is not a single valid link to an existing article. This is evidence that these redlinks serve no purpose but to create clutter and the likelihood of future misdirects. As mentioned, when I came across the article, there were three blue links -- all three of them were misdirects. Ground Zero | t 13:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
This is inevitable, i believe Florentyna are not going to misdirect the links but he didn't check the link first, naturally not his fault because we don't know such links are redirect, thats why links need to maintain all the time. --Aleenf1 14:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As there has been no further discussion, there seems to be no reason why badminton articles should be treated differently from other articles in Wikipedia when it comes to linking lists: "...rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first, and instead use WikiProjects or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles." Ground Zero | t 12:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Multi-million question, are you sure you can tracking thousand of unwritten articles? If so, if page exist, if it is possible for you to add back those who not linked? Think yourself. --Aleenf1 13:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

What from my page of view can be done, is using colspan and rowspan to reduce the "red". But no delinking. This is very fast done, but the re-adding of the links would really take a lot of time. For me there is no reason to delete the work other users did in the last years simply by deleting all brackets. Hours of work one can destroy within a couple of minutes by doing this. All the linked persons are as champions relevant. Tools like the Missing topics tool [1] will not more working correctly (i.e. not more giving the correct results). Another reason is, that we are still in the building-up phase of the whole wikipedia project. A lot of misspellings occur (for instance Dimesh instead Dimech). With this red-linked articles it is very comfortable thing to find out such misspellings (with the mentioned tool). And instead discussing weeks and weeks about this, if everybody would write two articles in this time about badminton players from Malta, all the discussion would be worthless. --Florentyna (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-adding a link when an article is created takes very, very little time. There is no sign that any articles will be created anyway -- the evidence is there that no article has ever been created about these people.
If it takes hours of work to add links, then you are doing it the wrong way. I cannot imagine how you could possibly spend hours adding links to this article.
The work will not be "destroyed" as I will transfer the links to a project page as per the style guide direction I cited above. This will create a place someone who wants to work on articles to begin, in the unlikely event that someone does.
Finding reliable sources about any but the most recent of the champions will be next to impossible anyway because the subject matter is way too obscure, so even if someone did take an interest, they would not be able to create a valid article.
If you disagree with WP:REDLINK, you can propose changes at Wikipedia talk:Red link. Ground Zero | t 14:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
I've come here wondering about the project's stance on notability because of all the redlinks in the yyyy BWF Season articles. You could help this by putting on the project page whether winning a particular tournament, or being a runner-up, bestows notability. Schwede66 17:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NBADMINTON. --Florentyna (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Almost four years after I started this discussion, the Maltese article linked above still has not one valid blue link. Not one. Florentyna has not created any articles for asny if these people. And no one else has either. Furthermore, in the large majority of cases, it would not likely be possible to create an article using reliance sources for these people. This field of red links serves no purpose. The use of WP:NBADMINTON to support mas red linking of articles violates the spirit and intent of general Wikipedia style. Ground Zero | t 11:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Ground Zero, I agree that the Maltese Nationals mass red-linking serves no real purpose. Unless they can achieve something that listed in WP:NBADMINTON, no one will bother create the article. But I oppose the mass red-link removal at the (insert year here) BWF Season pages like what Schwede66 said. Removing the red links of the tournaments and the winners and the runner-up will create another problem should their article will be created later. Some of the winners are already notable per point 3 of WP:NBADMINTON by winning the respective tournaments. Griff88 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople[edit]

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration[edit]

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:31, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Super Series Tournament Brackets[edit]

Currently there is disagreement regarding which types of brackets are best suited for the badminton tournaments. For the past several years we have used these together: Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3 Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis3-v2. However, there is a user who believes that Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis3-v2 Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3 should be used together. Since constantly undoing edits is unproductive we need to come to a consensus regarding which format should be used.--MorrisIV (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep until the editor makes their case for the change from the consensus, per WP:BRD. Widefox; talk 15:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
What is best way to be manage, that is what I'm mean. If tournament is 64 players per event, i will find 4 sections is best way to be manage. Now we got 32 players, so 2 is simple. I also found only 8 sections in Grand Slam tournament which place 128 players. So, change to 4 sections is not a best option, also waste time to manage. Is not a race for who to win or interesting to read, but which is the best way to produce. --Aleenf1 16:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I found an article that doesn't seem very encyclopedic[edit]

The article 2010 BWF World Championships – Men's Singles has only two complete sentences and a fragment in the introduction, and that segment is the only part functioning to give any information beyond the very detailed bracket that is much better suited to a site like ESPN. I believe this article either needs a lot more information or should get put on the AfD list. I posted this on here instead of the talk page there because it doesn't seem like its talk page would get much in terms of Wikipedian traffic. impinball (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A normal tournament bracket of which you can find hundreds here on Wikipedia in many sports. Additional text is welcome on many pages, so feel free to add some. --Florentyna (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tournament bracket and flag[edit]

Recently, we have a few conflicts about the manual of style for the coverage of tournament, such as tournament bracket and use of flag. Here is to gauge the opinion and hopefully to reach a final consensus even though we have discussed it before.

Bracket to consider:

Remember, in badminton, in Super Series, we have a maximum 32 players only while tourney such as World Championships could field a maximum of 64 players.

Next about flag, recently it is a conflict should the flag use to indicate the player nationality or even host nation of the tournament. Remember player register to play via member association. Should member association consider as nationality? Should the host nation worth to display flag in table or infobox?

Please give your opinion, many thanks! --Aleenf1 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistent Spelling of Names[edit]

There are several athletes whose names have inconsistent spellings. The reasons vary, but include: multiple transliterations of the same names, some athletes take English names which can confuse order, different editors have different preferences and/or sources.

The most prominent names I can think of are:

  • Tontowi Ahmad - BWF and Tournament Software have spelled his first name as 'Tantowi'.
  • Gideon Markus Fernaldi - The BWF lists Gideon as first, but when User:AssedL created his biography he placed Gideon last, the link currently redirects.
  • Aprilsasi Putri Lejarsar Variella - Every source I've seen has the preceding word order, but AssedL placed Variella first.
  • Lam Narissapat - That is the link to her biography, but all BWF sources list her as Narissapat Lam. I can't think of another Thai name that has been this inconsistent.
  • Bae Youn-joo - Her name was originally listed as 'Youn-joo', but now it's 'Yeon-ju'. I have only seen Korean names using the former spelling.
  • Ryan Agung Saputra - Every sources spells his name 'Ryan', but his Wikipedia page spells his first name as 'Rian'.
  • Gabrielle White - She recently married and sources are inconsistent as to whether or not she has taken the last name 'Adcock'.
  • The following names have traditional Eastern names, but the athletes have adopted English names which leads to an inconsistent listing for them. These are three examples, but there are more.
    • Hoo Vivian Kah Mun
    • Zhao Jiang Terry Yeo
    • Vanessa Yu Yan Neo--MorrisIV (talk) 03:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Inconsistency (and also misspelling) of names in Tournament Software has created problems for user(s) not familiar with various naming systems. I think we should make a consensus about name displays. Here's some of my proposal:
  • For Chinese names with adopted English name, it depends of the player's nationality:
    • Hong Kong players like Alan Chan Yun Lung should be displayed as Chan Yun Lung. I remembered how BWF only listed the Chinese name only, before they recently started adding the English name to the profiles.
    • Singaporean players like Derek Wong Zi Liang should be displayed as Derek Wong (english-chinese surname format). I believe this is a common practice for English commentators in Singaporean TV.
    • Malaysian players like Vivian Hoo Kah Mun doesn't need any changes. (Use the common English-Chinese surname-Chinese given name format)
  • Korean names have gone several romanization changes and became confusing. I think with should (if possible) keep with Revised Romanization of Korean format. If they have already Wiki pages with other formats, I believe we should follow them.
Example: Jang Ye-na is now referred as Chang Ye-na in BWF websites, this is due to change of the romanization of "ㅈ" from "ch" to "j". Actually it should be "j" but now South Koreans mixed it.
  • Indonesian with no surnames will be displayed in Tournament Software with their first name repeated. In this case, we should only display it once. To make it even more confusing, Indonesian sometimes adopt their parent's first name as the surname, but it is not used in official documents like passports.
Example: Apriani Apriani (it should be Apriani) Griff88 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with your proposals regarding Hong Kong, Malaysian, and South Korean names. I definitely believe we should keep South Korean names as they are. I don't get the impression that this change is transliteration is permanent and it would be incredibly time consuming to go back and change every name. Not to mention the numerous re-directs that would result.--MorrisIV (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
About the South Korean name issue, I believe Wikipedia has used two kinds of romanization. The first one is the older version (Example: Bang Soo-hyun → Bang Su-hyeon in newer / RR format) and the newer one which is often used for younger generation atheletes (Example: Yoo Yeon-seong → Yoo Yun-sung in older format). After some thought, I feel we don't need to change the newer format to older and vice-versa, but we need to check which one is more often used for new Korean athletes page in other sources because of the inconsistency of BWF Tournament Software and Korean names itself. I used Jang Ye-na's name as example because she's quite notable and it also became a question in a social media discussion. Griff88 (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag usage on sports articles[edit]

A discussion has begun to outline usage of flags on sports articles and to review their usage. Sports articles have long diverged from what is stated in the manual of style. Please comment on the proposals and add suggestions by contributing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. Thanks. SFB 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Red-linked articles on the Wikipedia:Most-wanted_articles listing[edit]

Hi, I'm not familiar at all with your Project's notability guidelines, but, for some reason, at least a handful or so of the most commonly red-linked articles on the most recent (actually not so recent - it's from December 2013) listing of the "most wanted" articles on Wikipedia are badminton players. Could someone from your Project have a look at some of these names to see if they really need to be on Wikipedia? Thank you in advance. Guy1890 (talk) 05:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Guy, I think you'll find that this is a result of the decision of one editor to link every name in every list of badminton players, no matter how obscure. Badminton players from Malta, for example. See the discussion above. In most cases, I think it would not be possible to create an article, let alone one with information that is verifiable from reliable sources. Ground Zero | t 10:10, 17 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) 22:47, 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) 07:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-organize the Badminton at the .... Summer Olympics page[edit]

The page for badminton at the 1996 and 2000 Summer Olympics are not following the standard like the one in 1992 or the 2004. Complete results of the competition were listed in tables instead of the bracket template. I am planning to move the results to a new event page (to follow the standard and clean it) but I'm concerned about sentences which highlighted the match. Should those sentences also moved to the new page(s) or just delete them? Thank you for your response. Griff88 (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. It's been on my to-do list for quite some time. I like the templates that have been used for the 2008 and 2012 Olympics. If the written accounts of the tournament fit the style of later pages then use them, but feel free to restate anything in your own words as you see fit.--MorrisIV (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Taipei Open 2015 GPG[edit]

At the 2015 BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix page, I found that there are two Taipei Open Grand Prix. I think the last one (Sep 22-27) doesn't exist but I need someone to also verify about this issue. Thanks. Griff88 (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Griff88, it does exist but the date have been moved to Oct 13-18 (see reference). It is a Grand Prix tournament, the other one in July is a Grand Prix Gold torunament. MbahGondrong (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the graphics for Template: Medal[edit]

There is a template talk page discussion regarding the graphics used for medalists in infobox medals tables occurring at Template talk:Medal#‎Changing from gold/silver/bronze to 1/2/3. As this discussion is within the scope of WP:Badminton, you are invited to make your comments on the recent graphics changes there. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Title of tournament in Super Series and Grand Prix tournament[edit]

One anon IP keep rolling on the title of Super Series tournament, as this revision. The question is does we need to keep clarify the title, e.g. "All England Super Series Premier" or "All England Open"? --Aleenf1 14:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, another question is should we follow BWF title as "Superseries" or our "Super Series"? --Aleenf1 14:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I believe we should use Super Series.--MorrisIV (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
One anon IP keep revert on this, and seems no intend to discuss the issue. --Aleenf1 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Super Series" or "Superseries" + tournament title "All England Open" or "All England Super Series Premier"?[edit]

POV require for this two issue, your comment is appreciated. Thanks. --Aleenf1 14:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I think each individual tournament's page (i.e. 2014, 2015, 2016) should be titled the All England Super Series with Premier added for any applicable year. But the main page for the tournament itself should be the All England Open. I recognize that is at first glance inconsistent, but the tournament dates back to 1910 while the Super Series and Premier designations are very recent.--MorrisIV (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion from MorrisIV is the best solution for this issue I believe. BWF tournaments' status can be changed in any time (Australian Open for example, from a Grand Prix to Super Series) so we should name each year with its respective status and leave the tournament main page with the original name. Should BWF create another tournament level with higher status than Super Series Premier, we will just need to change the name of the applicable tournament year(s). I think a WikiProject Badminton MoS is needed now to prevent future issues like this. Griff88 (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Li Lingwei (badminton) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Li Lingwei (badminton) to be moved to Li Lingwei. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

BWF Super Series listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for BWF Super Series to be moved to BWF Superseries. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Standardizing the color code for BWF tournaments[edit]

To make it easier for readers & to avoid edit-warring, it's important to have a standard color code for different BWF-sanctioned events. e.g. here is my suggested color code, which is based on the BWF's different levels & ranking points:

S. No. Tournament category Color Code
1 BWF Event FFD700
2 Super Series Premier/Finals 8CD84E
3 Super Series 98FB98
4 Grand Prix Gold FFFF67
5 Grand Prix 00FFFF
6 International Challenge C6AEFF
7 International Series D5D5D5
8 Future Series E9E9E9
9 Multi-sport event FFB069
10 Continental Championships CDFFF4
11 Invitation Tournament FFE0AF
     BWF Event
     Super Series Premier/Finals
     Super Series
     Grand Prix Gold
     Grand Prix
     International Challenge
     International Series
     Future Series
     Multi-sport event
     Continental Championships
     Invitation Tournament

PS: Tournaments with same ranking points are categorized together.

In fact, the other editors can suggest color codes of their choice. But there should be a standard regarding it. And that's the main point.

BTW, there's a user named Nardisoero, who is doing disruptive edits to the badminton articles. Here's an example of one of his recent edits to an article: a) Older version; b) Nardisoero's version. And here's the latest example: Wang Zhengming. So, the concerned members here might want to look at his other edits, although I have posted a message to him regarding it today.-NitinMlk (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, i think you might want to see 2015 BWF Season as well, the key area. Is the change is wil affect lot of article? --Aleenf1 12:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
It will surely affect many articles in the starting. But after that there will be a uniformity. And there will be a standard for future editors to follow. As of now, most badminton players' articles are either stubs or messed-up anyway. In any case, we have to set a standard color code to bring some sort of order. BTW, what can you do about Nardisoero? His edits are an example of side-effects of not having a standard color code and a standard way of representing players' titles.-NitinMlk (talk) 13:45, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
This chart does not include competitions like the Sudirman Cup, Uber/Thomas Cup, Commonwealth Games, and other regional championships.--MorrisIV (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, Sudirman Cup, Uber Cup & Thomas Cup are BWF events. And they are graded by BWF alongside Olympics & World Championships. The team events won't find place in players' record of individual titles & they will appear only in their info-boxes, where color code isn't needed. But in other articles they should be listed as BWF events & there by the first box - viz.      BWF Event - will take care of them.
Secondly, to my surprise, Asian Games & Commonwealth Games are graded as BWF events & categorized as 'Multisports event'. But I think generally 'multisports' events aren't graded by BWF until they follow the BWF regulations, in which case they get graded as one of the already mentioned categories. e.g. Asian Games & Commonwealth Games (Mixed Team Event) are graded as BWF events, Asian Championships are graded as Superseries, European Championships are graded as Grand Prix Gold, Oceania Championships & Pan American Championships are graded as Grand Prix, African Championships are graded as International Challenge, etc. So, we can make one more category as 'Multisports event'. Similarly, there are World/European University Championships, which are also categorized as 'Multisports' events by BWF. But they aren't ranking events. So, a multisports event can be categorized as per BWF grading or as 'Multisports event' depending on the situation. Whereas a university event can be categorized as 'Multisports event' or can be left uncategorized.
Thirdly, there are two more categories, namely 'Continental Individual/Team Championship' & 'Invitation Tournament', under which tournaments like Copenhagen Masters fall.
Finally, I personally believe that BWF is the highest authority & if they aren't grading any event then we should also just leave it uncategorized. So, basically there are only eight grades, which are already listed by me. But for aesthetics, three more categories can be added, namely 'Multisports', 'CC Team Championship' & 'Invitation Tournament'. So, I am including them in the above table.
PS: I chose the above eleven shades on the basis of ease of their distinction from each other along with their affect on the legibility of the textual content.-NitinMlk (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I like those additions. I would suggest not using pink. It has become standard in Medals Boxes to shade an athletes result pink if they were subsequently disqualified for doping. Perhaps a different shade of green?--MorrisIV (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I replaced that color.-NitinMlk (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Today, I completely replaced pink shades from the table.-NitinMlk (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This should be write into project page for guideline reference. Not much point if leave in talk page only --Aleenf1 13:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
How much information do you think should be put on the project page? Does the above table alone suffice? Or the other points regarding the grading that I pointed out here should also be put on there?-NitinMlk (talk) 13:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I believe that, along with listing the above table on the project page, we should also give the editors advice to check the BWF grading of the tournament from this page: BWF World Rankings: Tournaments. And if the tournament isn't listed on this page, i.e. it isn't graded by the BWF, then they should check this page: Tournament Calendar. And put the tournament under relevant category accordingly. BTW, these two links contain the grading/category of all tournaments organized since 2009.-NitinMlk (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Neat and tidiness always is the key to present the guideline. Table and some explanation is necessary, plus other you might feel worthy. --Aleenf1 14:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Should I give it a go? Or one of the experienced members like you would like to do it? Should there be new section for it or should it be put under one of the existing sections of the project page?-NitinMlk (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Be bold, you can go ahead. --Aleenf1 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I will give it a try. In any case, you are there to improve/correct it later on.-NitinMlk (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I just added a relevant section on the project page. Please check, improve, expand & correct it!-NitinMlk (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi there, I found that this color-coding system is suitable to make badminton player pages more organized and easier to understand. My question is: what should we do to pages which did not list the title with the style like in Saina Nehwal or Nguyen Tien Minh. (Mads Pieler Kolding page as example). Do we need to change the color too? Or, we should also change the achievement list style plus the color? Griff88 (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I think there should be uniformity in presenting players' titles & their color coding. So, we need to have a standard way of representing players' titles.
After checking different styles, I found that the titles are presented in the best way in articles like that of Saina's because that style gives clear picture of titles & runners-up. Whereas the tables where both titles & runners-up are presented together give a bit lesser clear picture. Some even use different shades for winner/runner-up columns in those tables which creates further confusion as colors are also used to segregate titles. But again we need consensus regarding it. The best thing as of now is that most articles on the badminton players are stubs. So, standard adopted at this stage will be easier to implement.-NitinMlk (talk) 12:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Never thought that selecting eleven distinctive shades can be challenging! I was also advised to avoid the pink shades as they are used for indicating doping ban. So, out of the remaining shades, I finally selected the above set. Please someone try them out in players' title tables & give me feedback.-NitinMlk (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I will try to adopt the achievement style and color-coding schemes to some athlete biography pages. Starting from those who has only a few titles. Griff88 (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks!-NitinMlk (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way, NitinMlk, can you name some pages that has used this new color-coding format? I need it to track which page has used the format. Griff88 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Griff88, I haven't used it in any page as of now simply because I wanted feedback from other members like you. But as far as the format of title presentation is concerned, Saina's titles section is fine.
BTW, if you have time, I would suggest you to try the above color-coding along with title representation style on the Juliane Schenk's title section. That section need some work as titles are presented without grading in it. So, you can divide that section into 'Individual titles' & 'Individual runners-up' subsections along with trying the above color-coding. BTW, BWF World Rankings: Tournaments contains the grading information of all of the Juliane Schenk's titles & runners-up.-NitinMlk (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
NitinMlk, I tried to edit Juliane Schenk's achievements in my own sandbox. I believe we need some adjustment here... Since some of the colors are rather difficult to differ in first glance (SS vs SSP/SSF), I propose to create the shade with more contrast:
     BWF Event
     Super Series Premier/Finals
     Super Series
     Grand Prix Gold
     Grand Prix
     International Challenge
     International Series
     Future Series
     Multi-sport event
     Continental Championships
     Invitation Tournament

Griff88 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Griff88, I wanted to keep the shades light & yet distinctive so that they won't destroy the viewers' reading experience. But, as they seem to be lesser distinctive to you, I will make changes to them. And I will try to make use of contrasting colors. I will revamp the above color scheme whenever I will get a bit of time tonight. BTW, your shades are distinctive but a bit strong. e.g.      makes text illegible but its lighter version can be used. Anyway, I will try to make the relevant changes tonight.-NitinMlk (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Griff88, I could only get some spare time today in which I chose some gaudy shades. :) I also included two shades similar to those suggested by you. I will further try to improve them whenever I will get time today.-NitinMlk (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Griff88, I've made few changes in the color-code table. Any suggestions for the further improvement?-NitinMlk (talk) 09:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi NitinMlk, I just saw the colors and yes... it is good. Good contrast and it is not too strong (which may reduce readers' experience). I will use this color-coding starting from the next athlete bio I am going to create. Thank you for your help :) Griff88 (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
In fact, thanks to you for guiding & supporting me. As I am new to Wikipedia, I will try to go through articles like MoS to learn a bit about editing. And hopefully will be able to make some meaningful contribution on this wonderful site.-NitinMlk (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I made a major revamp, so anything wrong please point here. Thanks. --Aleenf1 06:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Aleen, there are few points regarding your edits:
1) BWF doesn't grade every tournament but they categorizes each one of them. And that might lead to confusion among the new editors. e.g. Tournament Calendar simply lists Badminton Asia Championships (2014) & Asian Games (2014) as Continental Championships & Multisports events respectively, which gives the impression that they were non-ranking tournaments. But BWF World Rankings: Tournaments actually tells you that these two were Grand Prix Gold & BWF events respectively.
And that was the reason I mentioned that "To check the grading of the tournament, editors are advised to visit this web page: BWF World Rankings: Tournaments. If the tournament is not listed on this web page, i.e. if it was not graded by the BWF, then they should check here: Tournament Calendar. And put the tournament under relevant category accordingly". But you replaced it with "Grading of each tournament, please refer to BWF World Rankings: Tournaments or Tournament Calendar websites". I think this will only lead to many events being wrongly put under the categories like Multi-sport event & Continental championship - in spite of them being graded by the BWF.
2) You replaced "Super Series Premier/Finals" with "Super Series Premier (Finals)" in the table. Now the '/' in the former indicates that either of the two events - SSP or SSF - has the Premier grading while '()' in the latter expression means that you are giving further details of the mentioned event, which will lead to the misconception that only SS Finals are Premier events.
3) Other than the above two points, there are some minor punctuation errors along with misplacement of a sentence. e.g. after "as follows" you put "." instead of ':'. And, instead of putting the table right after "as follows", you inserted a sentence. Similarly, there are minor grammatical errors in the last three sentences of the section.
Other than the above points, it seems fine.-NitinMlk (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Need for three more articles on tournament categories.[edit]

Addition of the following three articles will help in properly categorizing all of the international badminton events:

a) BWF events: There's a need of an article on the BWF events, which discusses & categorizes all of the individual/team events organized by BWF.

b) Continental Championships (badminton): There are articles on different badminton Continental Championships around the world. But there's a need for a parent article, which list all of those CC events at one place along with mentioning their BWF grading in the relevant cases.

c) Invitation Tournaments (badminton): This article will complete the list of all categories.

PS: The main purpose of this talk is to make consensus that whether we actually need these three new articles or not.

Not worth to create it. For first two is already listed in governing body article, so that is no necessary to make another article for it. --Aleenf1 14:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I will add the piped links of those sections of the article in the above color code table. But I believe that section on BWF tournaments needs to be much more comprehensive. e.g. just take a glance at the events organised by the BWF. I have listed some of them on the project page under the color code section. And that list isn't complete as I haven't listed the junior circuit BWF events. So, clearly BWF organizes more than six events.-NitinMlk (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
In fact, I just found out that the section on the BWF page is just listing the Continental federations rather than listing the Continental Championships. So, that section won't serve the purpose here.-NitinMlk (talk) 14:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
BWF events are already written in the BWF page. Each detail can be found in the respective pages (so we do not need a seperate page). I think we can just simply add the continental championships in BWF page. The only we need is the page which list the BWF sanctioned invitation tournaments. Griff88 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Earlier I also used to think that BWF events constitute only the six flagship events which are listed on its page. But then I checked the grading of various tournaments - BWF World Rankings: Tournaments - and found out that the continents' major team Championships & badminton events at major tournaments like Asian Games & Commonwealth Games are also graded as BWF events. So, that's why I suggested expansion of the BWF tournament section.
There's a need to list all of these other BWF events in the BWF tournament section. So, one might add a couple of subsections in the tournament section, which list the relevant Continental Team Championships & games like Asian/Commonwealth Games. BTW, in addition to the six major events, here's the partial list of those events which are graded as 'BWF event':
BWF Individual Events: Asian Games & Commonwealth Games.
BWF Team Events: Commonwealth Games - Mixed Team Event, European Men's and Women's Team Badminton Championships, European Mixed Team Badminton Championships, African Continental Championships (Team event), Oceania Mixed Team Championships, Pan American Badminton Championships (Team event) & African Badminton Cup of Nations (Team Event).-NitinMlk (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the purpose of two categories in the tournament color-code.[edit]

The sole purpose of the addition of the two categories, namely 'Continental championships' & 'Multi-sport event', was to cover a handful of far-flung non-ranking/ungraded events. Below I am listing a few of the BWF-sanctioned events for which I added these two categories:

a) BWF non-ranking CC events: Pan Am Individual Championships & European Club Championships.

b) BWF non-ranking Multi-sport events: SEA Games, Universiade, World University Championships, Natwest Island Games, European Games, Indian Ocean Island Games, European University Championships, European Universities Games, etc.

Please don't categorize prestigious graded events under these worthless categories. And if other members think that the above listed tournaments aren't even worth mentioning in the Wiki articles then I propose the removal of these two categories from the color-code table.-NitinMlk (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that CC events are being diversely graded by BWF depending upon the level of competitiveness/importance of them. e.g. 2014 Africa Individual Championships was International Series, 2015 African Continental Individual Championships was International Challenge, 2014 Pan American Badminton Championships was Grand Prix, 2014 European Championships was Grand Prix Gold, 2015 Asian Championships was Super Series & I think most of the CC Team events are graded as BWF events. So, it would be meaningless to categorize all of such diversely graded events under one category, namely 'Continental championships'. And this fact also applies to the graded Multi-sport events. So, the above two categories either should be reserved for the ungraded events or should be omitted from the color-code table.-NitinMlk (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

NitinMlk, now I clearly understand what do you mean with graded and categorized. While most of us here intended to categorize the events, your color codes are meant to grade the events. Well, this is a major confusion. Sorry about that. Personally, I want to categorize the events regardless of the grades (where the grades are about how much points the events give). I think that if we list the events (or career achievements) by grades, I believe that most readers will be confused.
Meanwhile, BWF is also a bit inconsistent in grading the events and that's why I propose to keep any CC events inside its own category.Griff88 (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Griff88, although I totally understand your point but I believe grading gives the best possible information about the event's competitiveness along with its importance on the international circuit. e.g. Olympics is categorized by the BWF as a "Multisports" event but it's BWF's major event. And categorizing it as "Multisports" event won't do justice.
Having said that, I have no problem in following whatever you & other members decide. But reach to a consensus with other experienced members like Aleen & MorrisIV or whoever is knowledgeable here. And also make consensus regarding the usage of 'Multi-sport event' category.-NitinMlk (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Griff88, I think you are correct that readers will be confused when they see the CC/multi-sport events being highlighted by different grades. So, it's better to keep them in the CC/multi-sport category only. And readers can check the grading info of any particular CC/multi-sport event from its parent article.
Finally, I just want to make sure that what you all members here want is to put all CC events under the 'Continental championships' category. And, leaving behind Olympics (which to be highlighted as a 'BWF event'), all multi-sport events to be put under the 'Multi-sport event' category. Right?-NitinMlk (talk) 07:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. I will wait for confirmation from other users like Aleen or MorrisIV regarding this issue. In the meantime, we should not alter any competition categories from any athlete biography pages. Griff88 (talk) 08:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Griff88, it seems that nobody cares!-NitinMlk (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see this doc, then you should know how to decide. --Aleenf1 12:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
NitinMlk, I looked again at BWF Calendar and they list 2016 Olympics as Multi sport events category. I think the "grading" (please refer to my previous replies) can be used instead of "categories", as long we have an explanation in a page (BWF World Ranking page would be suitable). And also, if a curious reader have the same point as me, we can add a link to the explanation from any athlete's achievements. It can also act as a preventive way to avoid edit wars with some editors. But first, we need a consensus to use "grading" or "category".... Griff88 (talk) 13:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Griff88 & Aleen, Firstly, I want to clarify that there isn't confusion with any event other than CC/Multi-sport events. If members here want to mark the events according to their BWF grading - which I also wanted from the very beginning - then the two categories, namely      Multi-sport event &      Continental Championships will become redundant. And these two categories can be conveniently replaced by a single category - namely      Non-Ranking event - which will take care of the non-ranking/ungraded events that I mentioned in the starting of this thread.
Only minor challenge in grading comes from the fact that BWF grades Asian Games & Commonwealth Games as BWF events. So, we have to specifically mention in the BWF's "Tournaments" section that, other than six major/flagship events, BWF also grades Asian Games, Commonwealth Games & major CC Team events as 'BWF event'. To put it simply, we have to make a separate subsection in the BWF's "Tournaments" section, which lists all those individual events & CC Team events which are graded as 'BWF event'.-NitinMlk (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Alright then. Let's do that NitinMlk. Griff88 (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Griff88, shouldn't we wait for the other members' opinion? You understood my point but it seems that the other members are a bit confused. So, I want to clarify to them that if we categorize the events then it will only make things unclear & the title table of the player won't tell the significance of his/her titles straightaway. That's because all the ranking & non-ranking CC/Multi-sport events will be categorized together. e.g. Asian Games will be categorized along with non-ranking Multi-sport events like Universiade, SEA Games, SA Games, etc. So, readers will have to visit & carefully read the parent articles of the respective events to know their importance on the international circuit.
But if we use grading approach then readers will know the concerned player's potential by having a single glance at the title table. e.g. a lot of gold and/or green shades in the title table will indicate that the concerned player is one of the top players in the world. The grading approach will also be in line with the BWF's approach as they are grading every event very carefully in their new ranking system since 2007.
BTW, if we use grading approach then the last three categories, namely "Multi-sport event", "Continental championships" & "Invitation tournament", will become redundant & they will be replaced by a single category - 'Non-Ranking event'.
Aleen, what's your opinion regarding this matter?-NitinMlk (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Kelly Morgan listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Kelly Morgan to be moved to Kelly Aston. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

European Junior Badminton Championships[edit]

After some thought, I think the "best nation" column in the European Junior Badminton Championships page is rather useless. Why don't we list the forgotten winners of the team championship events instead? Any suggestion or comments regarding this? Thanks for your answers. Griff88 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Notability[edit]

Hi all, I want to know is there any agreed requirements that could make a player notable for a Wikipedia article? MbahGondrong (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, MbahGondrong. Yes of course, there are currently five notability criteria per WP:NBADMINTON:
1. Participation at the Olympic Games, or World Championships,
2. Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles competitions.
3. Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International).
4. Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix.
5. Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics. Griff88 (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Does medalist in point 3 and 4 covers only winners or also runners-up? Thanks for the swift response. :) MbahGondrong (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the term "medalist" in this context means the winners and also the runners-up. Basically all red-linked players in any year BWF Superseries and BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix are already notable. Lot of players in 2014 BWF Season, 2015 BWF Season, and 2016 BWF Season also fulfilled the criteria of notability. Just take caution with countries which host many tournaments with different level :) Griff88 (talk) 02:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

BWF International Challenge / International Series / Future Series[edit]

It looks like a user created pages for 2016 BWF International Challenge, 2016 BWF International Series, 2016 BWF Future Series and they are a bit forgotten. Are the pages approved for this WikiProject? And also, do we have to add them to {{BWF Seasons}} template? Griff88 (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Usually the series is playing by lower ranked players that do not have merit to play in Super Series or Grand Prix tournaments. So basically the players may not be recognise compare to players participating in upper class tournament. So less focus on those tournaments. Anyway, is up to you. --Aleenf1 14:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I like that the pages exist, and I might take the time to fill out the information at a later date, but I do not believe that each tournament deserves it's own Report page similar to the Super Series tournaments.--MorrisIV (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Can I make similar pages for the 2017 cycle? Ricks1456 (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It may risk AfD though, since for non-badminton follower users it might not be notable. I think the 2017 BWF Season page can be a good coverage for those tournaments. Griff88 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

2009 European Junior Badminton Championships[edit]

I think the article of 2009 European Junior Badminton Championships irrelevant with the result. This article talking about European U17 Championships 2009. U17 result and Junior Champs. --Stvbastian (talk) 01:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Article alerts?[edit]

Just wondering if anyone here is interested in having an Article alerts added to this WikiProject? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me

I support having Article Alerts.--MorrisIV (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I support too, wish project growth. --Aleenf1 14:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Support. It will be useful. Griff88 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Support – Lack of presence of the experienced users at the badminton-related AfDs recently forced me to participate in a couple of them. In fact, one of them is still active. So, I guess Article Alerts is good as it might increase the participation in such discussions from here. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Notability question[edit]

Would somebody from WP:BADM mind taking a look at Lee Zii Jia, Tan Yip Jiun and Wong Fai Yin to assess whether they satisfy WP:NBADMINTON? These are new articles/stub recently created within the past day or so by a new editor. At first glance, they do not look as if they would pass WP:GNG, but they might meet the guidelines for badminton players. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Some suggestions regarding WP:NBADMINTON[edit]

Discussion of the current criteria and the suggested changes[edit]

I've listed below the relevant points of the policy & my suggested changes:

(2) Competed in the quarter finals at a tournament of the highest level outside of the Olympics or World Championships (e.g. Continental Championships, BWF Super Series or Commonwealth Games) in teams or singles or doubles competitions.

It should be replaced with: "Competed in the quarter finals of the Continental Championships, BWF Super Series, Commonwealth Games, or Continental Games in teams or singles or doubles competitions."

My suggestion: "Competed in the Continental Championships, BWF Super Series, Commonwealth Games, or Continental Games in teams or singles or doubles competitions." --Florentyna (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(3) Medalist at the highest international teams or singles/doubles championships of a country (e.g. Canadian Open, German Open, Slovak International).

Just have a look at the BWF's tournament calender. The highest level/graded event of Argentina, Aruba, Croatia, Israel, Ivory Coast, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, etc. is Future Series. And the highest level event of countries like Chile, Cuba, Estonia, Greece, Guatemala, Iceland, Jamaica, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Turkey, Uganda, etc. is International Series. So, according to the above criterion, a player becomes notable if he/she reaches to the final of a Future/International Series in the aforementioned countries. But if a player wins even an International Challenge event – which is graded higher that the International/Future Series – in other countries, he/she remains non-notable. In short, the criterion mentioned under this point is flawed. We should just mention the minimum grading of an event, reaching final of which is required to become notable.

My suggestion: "Medalist at other official tournaments of the BWF like Int. Series, Int. Challenge, Future Series." --Florentyna (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(4) Medalist at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix.

Replace medalist with finalist, as the players neither officially represent their nations in the open events nor do they get medals in them.

My suggestion: "Rank 1 to 16 at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix." --Florentyna (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(5) Gold medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics.

This point is against Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities. A player should at least represent his/her nation in some international tournaments at the senior level. They can't become notable by just winning a local event. So, if possible, just remove this point. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion: "Medalist at a national teams or singles/doubles championship, for countries that regularly send athletes to the Olympics" --Florentyna (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

General discussion[edit]

The most relevant and important policy here is WP:BLP. That links to WP:NPOV. The simple truth is that we cannot have a verifiably neutral article on a living individual unless there are reliable independent sources. And that means proper sources, not the two websites associated with BWF that are the sole cited sources for a substantial number of articles on badminton players. Guy (Help!) 02:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. For me this is much softer than the current badminton criteria. This means for me, that reports in daily newspapers where for instance are listed results of national championships up to rank 16 generating notability. --Florentyna (talk) 09:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
But WP:GNG requires non-trivial coverage, and match scores are trivial. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
WP:GNG is exactly what the name suggests. It's a general notability guideline for those cases where topic-specific guidelines don't exist. The en wiki is filled with articles, which fail GNG. But those articles still exist because of the community's consensus. e.g. humongous number of villages, which lie in the far-flung corners of the world will instantly fail GNG. But we still have articles about them due to WP:GEOLAND. Similarly, all the high schools are considered notable unless you could prove that a particular high school doesn't exists; there's an essay regarding that – WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES – which works like wiki policies at the AfDs. Similarly, there are huge number of articles of clergies, military officers, academicians, etc., most of whom fail GNG. But they still survive deletion due to the community's consensus. Similarly, any sportsperson who ever participated in an Olympic event is notable, irrespective of GNG – WP:NOLYMPICS. And WP:NSPORT isn't any different. In fact, guidelines of many sports are nothing short of ludicrous, e.g. one has to play a single domestic cricket match to become notable – WP:NCRIC. Here's an example of a cricketer's article, which was snow kept: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodhew (Kent cricketer). - NitinMlk (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
JzG, I totally understand your point. But I also know a bit about the badminton community. That's why I already knew that they won't agree to even slightly tighten up the notability criteria. As you can see above, only one member responded, who basically ridiculed my suggested changes. In fact, they in turn suggested to make the present criteria even further lax. So, this clearly shows that the community won't tighten up criteria. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not up to them. A group of fans of a sport can't decide to arbitrarily ignore a foundational policy. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
First, members of this project are the most knowledgeable about badminton on this wiki. Some of them have been impartially editing badminton-related articles for over one decade. In fact, this project exists because of their efforts. To label all of them as 'fans' isn't correct.
Second, just have a look at the WP:ATH. All major/Olympic sports have their notability guidelines, just like badminton. And all of those policies are there because of the consensus developed by the most knowledgeable members of the respective communities. So, only way to tinker the guideline is by developing consensus here. Having said that, I will advise some of the new users to use independent reliable sources instead of depending on the BWF's official website. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the old list of WP:NBADMINTON is ok. Since i who created some articles about badminton players with non proper source, and without secondary sources. I am here only a few months, and i make an article just see the examples of existing articles without regard to the rules of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:GNG. In my next article, it would be my concern, and please correct me if I am wrong again. Thanks --Stvbastian (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

AfD alert[edit]

A badminton-related deletion discussion is in progress – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tata Open India International Challenge 2013. It pertains to deletion of the following seven articles:

Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi all!! There are some pages still on afd.. Please participate on the debate.. NitinMlk, Florentyna, Donaldinyongin

Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:NitinMlk and User:Stvbastian! Too bad I can't help with those AfD, I just saw the 2014 New Zealand GP and it is saddening to see that it is bashed by those who do not have a good understanding of badminton world and deleted... From what I see, the title (which include "Grand Prix") is somehow misleading Google News Search thus making no result due to confusion of other events like New Zealand Grand Prix. And for the often AfD nominated player articles (particularly IS/IC level winners), I think we should not really create the article unless there is another independent source such as the one in Akane Araki. Griff88 (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi all! There are some pages on afd.. Please participate on the debate.. (NitinMlk, Donaldinyongin, SVTCobra, Aleenf1, Widefox, Griff88)

Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all, please participate on the discussion for some AFD's. (NitinMlk, Donaldinyongin, Florentyna, Aleenf1, Griff88)

Thank you. Stvbastian (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red online editathon on sports[edit]

Women in Red logo.svg

Welcome to Women in Red's
May 2017 worldwide online editathon.
Participation is welcome in any language.

Test cricket - women - 1935.jpg

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability[edit]

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Notability again[edit]

On 19 Dec 2016, shortly before the discussion above about WP:NBADMINTON, there was a change from "are presumed notable if ..." (used by all other sports except the occasional use of "deemed" or "assumed") to "are likely to be notable if ..." in the opening line. This change doesn't appear to have been discussed on this talk page or at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports).

This wording is now being used to justify the nomination at AfD of a large number of national champion badminton players - see User_talk:Sportsfan_1234#Badminton_players.

Just a heads-up to Badminton enthusiasts - myself, I've been alerted by the flood of badminton players appearing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women/Article alerts, but it seems to be a gender-neutral campaign. PamD 08:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of infobox templates[edit]

Recently, user @Kante4: has removed infobox templates like {{Covert}}, {{Height}}, {{MedalSport}}, {{MedalCountry}}, etc. from several badminton BLPs without developing consensus, e.g. see here & here . I am posting this comment here so that I can get inputs from both Kante4 & the project members. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Height and weight automatically converts. I will add the sport and country back, my fault. I thought that was not needed as the country and sport is given at the infobox, but like i said, i add them back. Kante4 (talk) 08:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Added back the sport and country. Kante4 (talk) 08:34, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Kante4, thank you. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

2015 Gwangju medallist[edit]

After Yu Xiaohan was tested positive for doping violation at the Badminton at the 2015 Summer Universiade, the medals was reallocated. Then at the medal table state that Go Ah-ra/ Yoo Hae-won and Hsu Ya-ching/ Pai Yu-po won the silver and bronze medal respectively. Can anyone help me to find relevant sources about it? Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS[edit]

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)