Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Curling/Article Guidelines

Curling Club Notability Guidelines

We had a brief discussion on this, and it seemed a general consensus was that the following worked...so I'm suggesting it here:

A club is considered notable if it meets multiple of the following criteria

1. Club possesses its own (owned or lease) curling facility with dedicated ice available through the whole main curling season
2. Club has hosted, or will host, a National or World Championship event (mens, womens, mixed, or seniors), or a Direct Qualifier to a National Championship event (ie Provincial championships or USCA regional playdowns)
3. Club has significant external coverage outside the immediate area for some reason (unusual location, controversy, membership, etc)
4. Club is the home club of a National champion or World champion curler
5. Club hosts a major tournament (World curling tour or other "Professional" level event) on an annual basis

Commentary? GormtheDBA (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, I put the list into a numbered list format to make it easier to read. I think that's fine, and if it's been agreed on, then let's put it on in! I'd suggest we wait a little to see if anyone else has any comments on it, though. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you have to take #1 off the list. It's a very, very low bar, and basically guarantees that anything that meets one of the other criteria meets "multiples". Either that, or specify "3 or more". Canada Hky (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

So #s 2, 3, 4, and 5 will probably satisfy WP:ORG based on extensive coverage, which is good. They most likely satisfy WP:GNG, if not WP:ORG. #1 is the wildcard. You do make a good point that it might not be satisfactory to Wikipedia's notability standards. Besides, most clubs that satisfy #s 2-5 will already satisfy #1, so I think it might be best if we just drop it. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If #1 is dropped, would there still be a need for meeting multiple criteria? It seems like no, but I'm not too sure. Maybe we need to look more into the possibilities of each criterion.

Also, #s 2, 4, and 5 seem like subpoints of #3, so may I suggest that we move #3 down to the bottom of the list and have it read "Club has significant external coverage outside the immediate area for some reason other than the reasons listed above (unusual location, controversy, membership, etc)"? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To be clear - my suggestion was dropping #1 from the list, but still requiring that a club meet more than one of the remaining criteria. Or - if you keep #1, then require a club to meet at least three. Having its own facility, etc does nothing to make a club notable. Indeed - any notable club would almost certainly have this, but a great number of non-notable clubs would as well. It seems like something that was added because it would almost guarantee that a club that meets anything else on the list would pass the project's notability guidelines.

Notability guidelines are not a guarantee that an article will survive a deletion discussion. Basically, any article has to have coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Notability guidelines are intended to be a quick check if a potential subject would likely have that coverage. There is no sense setting the project's guidelines low, and then having articles deleted when no sources are found. Canada Hky (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

To clarify, I would propose the following notability guideline: A curling club may be considered notable if it has received coverage in reliable, secondary sources not directly affiliated with the club or its governing body. This coverage may result from, but not be limited to: hosting a national championship, world championship or other major tournament; unusual location, membership or other controversy, or home club for a national, world or Olympic champion. Canada Hky (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

My logic on the ice criteria is that it's a convenient shorthand. Clubs that have their own ice are the ones that are in "the pool" for hosting the major events (at least in the US, Canadian major events seem to be generally hosted at temporarily converted arenas, but that probably has something to do with significantly greater spectator attention in CAN). It's also an effective filter to slice down on clubs that exist only as an aspect of their parent arenas, which should be sections of articles on those arenas in my opinion. Of late, the opening of a dedicated curling club has tended to gather media attention as well (see, for example, Potomac's multiple articles in various major papers when it opened in '02, or the King Curling Club's articles in Wikinews currently.) I think it's a valuable metric, not a qualifier by itself, but as a filter.GormtheDBA (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't to be used as a qualifier, then it shouldn't be part of the notability guidelines. As you said - for any club to be in the mix, it would have to have its own ice, so that shouldn't be used to make up the "multiple" part. As my proposal is phrased - any single event is enough to qualify if it has given coverage, rather than including an easy "filter" and not making any requirement for coverage. Canada Hky (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the notability guideline that Canada Hky proposed is fine. Of course, I'd like to get more opinions on this before we put it in the AGs, but it seems like it covers all bases and leaves room for any changes. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Medal Tables

I just noticed that we forgot to include Olympic Trials in the table order. Where should that go? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Articles on curlers section

What else should be added to this section? Here's what I was thinking: lead section, career section(s), personal life section, awards section, infobox curler, medal tables (as subsection). Just things that should be included in an article about a curler. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Use of succession boxes

Do you think it would be a good idea if we used succession boxes for national/world/Grand Slam curling champions? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

They can get kind of messy for teams that don't have team page (would we link to the skip, have all the team members in there, alternates, coaches, etc?). I have never been a fan, as I don't see a whole lot of value in knowing who won before and after. There will almost certainly be a link to the event in the article text, and lists of winners can be found there. Alternately, links to XXX Tournament winners could be included in the "See also" section. Just my opinion, though. Ice hockey uses them. I don't like them, but I include them there when needed. Canada Hky (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Curling Event notability

The current text reads the following:

• Annual articles: Any national or provincial/territorial final is acceptable in men's or women's; Canadian Mixed, Seniors, Juniors; Any WCF sanctioned event; Any WCT event
• Articles on events, but not annual event articles: Any provincial/territorial or national event even not mentioned above; Any historic bonspiels, pre-WCT era.

Any comments? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If there aren't any comments, that'll just be final. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Career sections in curlers' articles

I think there should be some sort of set format for a curler's career sections. For example, some articles only have one main section, while some have many sections on the career. Kevin Martin's article has five "second level" (==X==) sections on his career, and Randy Ferbey's article has four second level sections, but Glenn Howard's article has one second level section split into two subsections. I think that the career sections should include one second level section titled "Career", and subsections if applicable, like Glenn Howard's article.
Also, there should probably be some consensus on the subsections, since the subsections can vary in terms of years covered. For example, Kevin Martin's article is split into the following: Junior career, early career, 1993–1999, 1999–2006, 2006–present, while Glenn Howard's article is split into the following: 1980s–2006, 2007–present. I'm not sure about you, but I see this as mildly confusing and not uniform. What are your thoughts on this? Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the subsections vary on the curler. Martin's career is split based on what teams he was with. For example, 2006 was the year the got his new team. His prior team was formed in 1999, etc. I think it makes the most sense to split the article up based on team "eras". Those three curlers have the most information on them, because I focused on bringing them up to those standards. We/I could do other. Maybe we could do a curler improvement drive? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a curler improvement drive would be great, since the events articles seem to be well done as is. Should we split the drive into different groups of curlers? I'm not sure how an improvement drive works. I'd also agree with your idea of splitting them by team "eras." One minor thing though: I'd advocate putting all career information under one "second level" section titled "Career," and put the year subsections under that. What do you think of that idea? Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the career thing makes sense. As for an improvement drive, I'm not sure what we could do. Perhaps we could advertise it, and have people make suggestions, then we vote on the suggestions and then we each try to help improve an article on a curler. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that'd be good. Maybe we can start out with some more significant curlers and then wind down to less significant curlers. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Article quality/importance

So, as I posted on WT:CURLING, I really think we should set some guidelines for the article quality and importance assessments (i.e. the {{curling|class=XXX|importance=XXX}} stuff). Deciding this set of guidelines should help to eliminate most of the confusion. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

What seems to be the case right now is this:

• Events
  • World Men's, Women's: Stub/Start class, high importance
  • WCT event pages: Stub class, low importance
    • GS events: Start class, mid importance
• Season pages: Stub/Start class, mid importance
• Curlers: Varies a lot

There's a lot of variants, though, and so it's really confusing. And I didn't really bother much with listing out every single item. I guess we can just list as we go. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Player lists

If a skip throws third rocks, he should probably be in the third column, for consistency reasons. Just, my opinion. Also, it would be cool if we had colours in the horizontal tables like we do in the Brier and Scotties. Might be interesting/fun to determine which colours are for which countries. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

That's sensible, so I've changed it. I never really understood the colors, and I'm not sure if it would help much, but it's an idea. By the way, is there any way that we could discuss the article ratings? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The colours more or less represent the provincial colours used on their uniforms, but lightened so that text can be read on them. And yes, let's discuss the ratings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting... it makes sense now. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Individual Curler/Event Notability

I'm starting to question whether "participation in a WCT event" is enough to establish notability for a curler, or if "Being a WCT event" is enough to establish notability for an event. My local club is hosting a WCT event this Thanksgiving...and to be in it, all you have to do is pony up some cash. There is no quality necessary. Some WCT events may be suffeciently subscribed to require qualifiers, but not all. We may need to rethink this.

At the very least, I would say that you would need to be in the top (something) percent of a WCT season to presume notability. Top 10% almost certainly means you're in the mix for national championships and the like. Just paying for an entry and going 0-3 doesn't make you notable. GormtheDBA (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

A case by case basis is necessary. If you are a joe blow lead playing in a minor WCT event, chances are there are no reliable sources for an article, therefore an article wouldn't be warranted. I think that if we can find reliable sources for a curler, then that warrants notability. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. I must ask, though... would it then be appropriate to create guidelines for the article quality/importance of an article on a curler, based on number of events participated or number of events won or whatnot, or would those articles require case-by-case basis examinations to determine the article rating? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Medal tables

I think that a national junior title DOES belong in the medal table category, because that is normally the first step to a curler winning medals at the Brier, Scotties and world titles. We mention it in their article what medal they won anyway, so why not give them the recognition on their medal table? We say in the policy that a curler is notable if he or she has even PARTICIPATED in the junior national event. Well if they are notable for even participating, why are their achievements in this event not notable? Winning a national title or making it to the top three is a big accomplishment in the majority of sports. Let the Juniors be recognized for their great accomplishment of winning a medal on the national stage. The final is a televised event and the semifinals will be televised this year, just like other events. This would be seen as even national television believes that their medals are important and therefore they should be included. I don't think Mixed and Seniors get the same kind of media coverage as the Juniors do and that is why Juniors should be next to have their medals put on the medal table summary. Also, same goes for the University championships. If we are going to mention their national medal in the article why not add it to the medal table. Thanks! Curlinggal 795

I don't necessarily think a national junior title belongs in the medal table category. On the flip side, we should also include any multiple sport event medals. I don't know.. because if we include Juniors, then why not Mixed, and Seniors? -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose you're right. Hmm... the only MSE that I can think of off the top of my head that has had curling (besides the OGs) are the Asian Games. Are there any more? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I just remembered the Universiade, but that's been listed on the medal tables already. The information for curling at the Asian Games is here. I'll poke around for some more events. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of the Canada Games and the Arctic Winter Games as well. Usually their medalists are not notable, but if they are, because it is a MSE, than I think their medal wins should be listed (eg Rachel Homan, Thomas Scoffin) -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, forgot about those. I see nothing against it. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we group the medals by country/province in many articles, perhaps this order would be a good fix? Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Country medals"

Olympic Games

World Championships

European Championships (ECC) / Pacific Championships (PCC) / Any future Pan-American Games event

World Senior Championships

World Junior Championships

World Mixed Doubles

European Mixed

World University Games (Winter Universiade)

"Province medals"

National Championships (including the Brier and the Hearts)

Olympic Trials

Canada Winter Games

Arctic Winter Games

Revisiting medals table order

The current agreed-upon order for medals tables is:

Representing Country

Olympic Games

World Championships

European Championships (ECC) / Pacific Championships (PCC) / Any future Pan-American Games event

World Junior Championships

World Senior Championships

World Mixed Doubles

European Mixed

World University Games (Winter Universiade)

Representing Province/State

National Championships (including the Brier and the Hearts)

Olympic Trials

Canada Winter Games

Arctic Winter Games

I suggest this slightly tweaked order, 1)European Mixed has been updated to World Mixed and 2)Mixed doubles is an Olympic discipline and as such I think should be on par with the traditional men's/women's.

Representing Country

Olympic Games

World Championships

World Mixed Doubles Championships

European Championships (ECC) / Pacific Championships (PCC) / Any future Pan-American Games event

World Junior Championships

World Senior Championships

World Mixed Championships

World University Games (Winter Universiade)

Representing Province/State

National Championships (including the Brier and the Hearts)

National Mixed Doubles Championships

Olympic Trials

Canada Winter Games

Arctic Winter Games

Alternatively, we could separate mixed doubles and men's/women's medals as seen in Cory Christensen's infobox. I admit I have done that occasionally when not thinking about these guidelines, though I haven't been consistent. A202985 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Canadian Junior's in medal table

Just a quick question about the medal tables. Do you think we should add the medals won at the Canadian Junior Curling Championships because it is on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Curling/Article Guidelines#Notability and makes some of the curlers notable. Just wondering. Thanks! TracyFleuryFan (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I've been against it because it opens a can of worms for adding mixed and senior medal tables and the same for other countries. We've had this discussion in the past and we have never reached a consensus. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The difference between the mixed / senior and the juniors is the notability. You have to win the mixed / seniors to be notable but for the juniors it’s just winning a medal in general. That’s why I think it should be on the medal table. Just my thoughts TracyFleuryFan (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK with it either way, but I'm leaning towards being against it because the only other medals in the infobox for province/state are Brier/Hearts, Olympic Trials, Canada Winter Games, and Arctic Winter Games. I think we can all agree that the first two are much more significant than Canadian juniors, and the Canada and Arctic Winter Games are both Olympic-type multidisciplinary events, while the Canadian juniors are just for curling. And although you have to win the mixed/seniors to be notable, I agree with Earl that if we add the juniors it might only make sense to add the mixed/seniors, because they're close enough in notability. I don't mind either way, though. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I guess I'm fine with either as well. The juniors are just the first step to a curlers success at the men's and women's levels and get more media coverage than the mixed and seniors. I don't think the mixed and seniors have enough recognition to be in the medal table but the juniors do. But we should definitely make a decision so it is not confusing anymore. TracyFleuryFan (talk) 3:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that we need a definitive decision and rationale. I oppose adding national junior medals to the medal tables because they are less significant than the other medals representing province/state that are already included. (Also, should we mention this at WT:CURLING, because I don't know if everyone in the project watches this page?) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 11:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I vote oppose as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

I’m okay with not including them as that seems to be the consensus. They aren’t that important so it’s okay to not include them. TracyFleuryFan (talk) 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding wheelchair curlers to notability guidelines

The notability guidelines (as seen at WP:NCURL) don't include wheelchair curlers and I think it's time we address that since there's been a couple wheelchair curler articles recently submitted to 'Articles for Deletion' and now one to 'Proposed deletion'. For Paralympic athletes notability is defined as having won a medal (see WP:NOLYMPICS), so I think for NCURL it needs to be at least that they've won a medal at the World Wheelchair Curling Championships (which would group them with other sort-of 2nd tier WCF-sanctioned events at #3 in the NCURL list) or maybe even limit it to just the champions.

Secondly, while on the topic of wheelchair curling I think article naming for wheelchair curlers could be addressed too. There are a couple articles where (wheelchair curler) (see Mark Taylor (wheelchair curler)) is added and then there are other articles where just (curler) is used (Patrick McDonald (curler)). Quickly looking at a couple of other wheelchair sports ( and ) it looks like predominantly 'wheelchair' is not added in front of the sport when the sport is needed in the article name. So I think the naming guideline as written, "If an article with the same name exists, (curler) should be added after the name.", should be applied equally to wheelchair curlers but wanted to get other's opinions too.

Opinions on these notability and naming guidelines? A202985 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with grouping wheelchair curlers' notability with #3 (medalling at worlds). I also think #2 needs to be clarified to say "Have participated at the World Men's, Women's, or Mixed Doubles Curling Championship", because "World Curling Championships" technically refers to all worlds, not just men's/women's. I also agree with keeping naming with just "(curler)" instead of "(wheelchair curler)" for wheelchair curlers. The only thing is what if there's a wheelchair curler and a non-wheelchair curler with the same name? We could go with adding nationality (as we do currently) or specifying "wheelchair". But I do agree with both your points. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree that they should have at least won a medal at a world championship to be notable. I also agree that for dabs "(curler)" is just fine. Many wheelchair curlers got their start in able-bodied curling (e.g. Jim Armstrong (curler)), so best to just use "curler" for consistency sake. I think we have consensus on that, so I'll begin moving articles to just "Name (curler)".-- Earl Andrew - talk 17:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there were only two cases of (wheelchair curler) being used as a dab, and it both cases they were likely used to avoid confusion with able bodied curlers with a similar name (Yan Zhou vs. Zhou Yan) - complicated by the fact that many sources put Chinese names in the wrong order. There is also a curler in Manitoba named Mark Taylor, who doesn't have a Wikipedia article (actually, there are 'two' other Mark Taylors who are curlers, but only one of them appears to be notable). -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for changing those two articles Earl. I think following the usual naming conventions whether they're able-bodied or wheelchair, like you did, makes the most sense. A202985 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Some days/weeks ago I "stupidly" added articles about all wheelchair curlers (and coaches) from Paralympic Games. Now I ("stupidly" again) add articles about curlers/coaches from Wheelchair Worlds (without "qualifications" and "B-champs" - only "main events"). For today I stay on WWhCC 2005. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's stupid—your hard work creating new articles is great for expanding our coverage of curling on Wikipedia, and quite admirable. We definitely did need to clarify the notability guidelines, though, so for now you should probably just stick to world wheelchair medallists. (Speaking of which, how do we go about editing the notability guidelines? Is it fine for one of us to just do that, since it seems like we all agree? Or do we first have to consult some other Wikipedia groups working on sports and/or notability?) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

You're probably fine changing it, with a note that the community here approved it. Originally, I unilaterally added a list of criteria myself (which was admittedly, quite lenient), and wasn't challenged for several years, at which point I came up with an agreement with some other users that restricted notability considerably to something more reasonable. I think it's unlikely anyone will challenge an approved amendment. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made the changes at WP:NCURL and Wikipedia:WikiProject Curling/Article Guidelines#Curlers. A202985 (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll continue same way through Wheelchair Worlds. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Without discussion at the talk page for the sports notability guideline, the change is likely to be reverted (I'm still considering, but I may well do it). Local consensus isn't considered sufficient to change a guideline. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone has put Otto Erb up for deletion as a test case (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Erb). He was a silver medallist from 2004. I can't find any sources on him other than his WCF page. Though, it's possible there may be some offline sources as his silver medal was won a while ago. It looks like we will either have to refine our definition to gold medallists, or just Paralympic medallists. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I've continued the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Curling. I think it's best to keep it going there. In any case, even Paralympic notability is a slippery slope. @Алексей Густов: It's probably best to hold off on creating new articles on wheelchair curlers until this is resolved. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. And my apologies for misleading you and A202985. I figured our consensus would be good enough, but perhaps we're too much of a "fiefdom" ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Haha no worries! The last time you were involved in changing notability guidelines was a while ago, anyway. At any rate, it'll be good to straighten everything out for good, whatever conclusion comes of this. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)