Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

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

RFC on the use of notable games sections[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Non-admin closure Closing this AfD with No result and without prejudice, on the basis of serious technical faults. Per WP:RFCQ and WP:RFC, the RfC question should [be] as specific as possible, yet the question posed here is hopelessly vague. It's in reference to "many sports," without defining which sports exactly, or at the very least which category of sports, e.g. track and field. The subsequent discussion has focused mostly on Chess but it would certainly be a mistake to suggest rules about "many sports" articles on the basis of one sport only, no matter what that sport is. The enormous variety of sports demands that a specific question about a specific sport be submitted. From then on, and depending on the RfC outcome, the path is to be defined.
It should be clarified that the notion of notable "games" (a completely different notion altogether from "matches" in Chess, incidentally) does exist, per abundant sources. Whether or not a section dedicated to notable games and matches should be constructed in Wikipedia articles is a matter that could be discussed in properly formulated RfCs. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)


In many sports articles there are sections dedicated to listing or detailing notable games. I am looking to gather some opinions on how these sections should be handled, particularly in biographies. Should they be included at all? If so what should be the criteria for a game to be designated notable? AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional notes: The majority of these I have come across relate to Chess Players and Baseball Umpires. I will leave messages at their wikiprojects, but if there are any others editors think should be contacted feel free to do so. Also while notable games are used for lots of different sporting articles, I am most interested in there use on biographies, where our sourcing requirements are stronger. However I welcome opinions on the other articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You will find a lot more such events if you search for "matches", as well as "games". In the game of cricket, it's quite normal, and actually expected, for particular highly successful innings or bowling performances (all within single games) to be mentioned in a BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I am not worried about mentioning them in their career, it is more having a dedicated section where we are deciding what constitutes a notable game or match. I searched "notable matches" and could not find a cricket one. Do you have an example. It seems to be common for football referees though so I will leave a message at their wikiproject too. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Might be good to take into account already-existing lengthy thread WT:CHESS#'Notable games' inclusion criteria. --IHTS (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Preferably not included. As a general section I find these to be a poor implementation of describing the games someone has participated in. Any games mentioned in this section should easily fit into their career section given that they are deemed by us to have been important in their career. Often these are just presented in list form, which brings undue concerns as not all games are equally notable, something a list does not usually distinguish between. It also raises original research questions. Mostly we are deciding if a game is notable, instead of letting secondary sources do so. By incorporating them into their career we can still have much the same information, but are not calling special attention to them as being extra notable. If it is decided that such a section is valid I think it should only contain games a source has designated as being notable. For some examples of biographies with notable games sections see Magnus Carlsen (which lead me to asking for a RFC) and Ángel Hernández (umpire) (which I incorporated a year ago, but has since been changed back). AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I think there is a difference to be made between some of these 'notable games' listed in some of the examples (which appear to just be exciting matches at most) versus things like Bobby Moore winning the World Cup having its own subsection to his career (not that I think his article is in a good shape currently). To carve out a section entirely for notable games for a club, or player, you would think that (within the context of the clubs career in particular) this would be likely to justify its own standlone article if it is in fact so notable (and be referenced via a "See main", or "See also"). If it isn't notable enough for its own article, then it should instead be summarised within the annual section of each team, and then treated in context for the club history. Koncorde (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
They should just be mentioned within the prose. However, I wouldn't be against them being in a section in a stub or something since its just an "unfinished" article at that point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • There is remarkable destructive power in the acceptance of user Aircorn's proposal. One tiny example, take a look at Genrikh Kasparyan. The logical conclusion to Aircorn's idea w/ result in the removal of sec "Sample study". And that would be absurd. (Therefore, something is decidedly wrong in this original proposal.) p.s. Please don't argue sechead "Sample study" is not equivalent to sechead "Notable games", there is no substantive difference. (WP:CHESS bios often have sechead "Example game[s]" or "Sample game[s]" or "Illustrative game[s]" which often become renamed to "Notable games" for cross-bio uniformity and MoS requirement for the plural case in such secheads.) --IHTS (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I doubt that is the case. The sample cases are often more like "playing style", or specific points of interest. Aircon is clearly not referring to chess, and inferring that 'notable games' (which are often unsourced, or weakly referenced not notable games) would somehow sweep away chess is a stretch of the meaning of 'logical conclusion'. Chess, and many other sports and games have very distinct inclusion criteria for what is notable or significant enough to warrant splitting matches away from the core narrative. Koncorde (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean. This whole issue started w/ chess, user Aircorn states that above. Aircorn *is* speaking about "Notable games" secs in WP:CHESS articles. (Why do you say he isn't?) What means "sweep away chess"? I was clear in the example I gave about secs equivalent to secheads "Notable games". I'm not familiar nor do I have to be in this discussion re sports matches & splitting them, this thread is 1/2 about WP:CHESS bios. I think you don't comprehend this thread or what I wrote above.
For WP:CHESS bios, are you suggesting "Notable games" secs list "playing style or specific points [games] of interest"? I suppose many times that is true. And on that basis I w/ have little problem w/ "Notable games" secs in WP:CHESS bios renamed to "Playing style" or "Games of interest". But that's unfortunately not what those secs are most often named. If I understand you correctly, you are claiming a substantive difference based on word choice ("notable" versus "style" or "point of interest"). The same arguments c/ be made against those secheads. ("What makes the games included more representative of playing style [or more interesting than] the subject's other games?" This topic has built-in confusions that haven't been dealt with, and plowing forward to a "solution" when the problem isn't well defined or understood can never be a good idea. --IHTS (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • On the specific point of inclusion of notable matches in biographies, I would say that if an event warrants its own article, then it at least deserves a paragraph summary of the event's relevance to the subject. If the subject's role in that event was minor (e.g. uneventful umpiring of said match) then a sentence or two will do.
  • In terms of notability of the games, I think lots of this is covered under general notability. Major finals in major sports receive lots of contemporaneous and retrospective analysis and discussion by sports media. Top level, non-final games with particularly unusual outcomes, happenings or innovations receive the same treatment (e.g. Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships). Everything I see in Category:Sports matches falls into one of those two categories. In my opinion, greater coverage of both these match types is warranted based on level of third party coverage (and is desired by readers). Clearly we should avoid whole-article-level coverage of routine fixtures (which is better briefly summarised in team-by-season articles or under rivalry articles), and I've seen little evidence of that happening often. Having worked on numerous Olympic event articles, I think other sports would really benefit from that approach. For example, I find it pretty crazy that we have almost as many articles in Category:Berlin Marathon as we do in Category:Tennis matches. Major sports finals, in particular, deserve better coverage. Category:FIFA World Cup finals should be the standard, not Category:FIBA Basketball World Cup Finals. SFB 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
  • In the context of chess biographies, this concern has already received recent and extensive discussion at WT:CHESS, so this is just forum shoppping since Aircorn didn't get the result they desired there. You can talk about baseball umpire biographies here if you like, but this discussion won't change how chess biographies are handled. Also, as a note, general notability has nothing to do with this question. Notability concerns whether a topic should receive a standalone article. Article content is not controlled by notability guidelines, different standards apply. Anyway, this was all hashed and rehashed at WT:CHESS. 03:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quale (talkcontribs)
  • The inclusion criteria should not be as stiff as notability (which applies to article topics, not items in articles), but there ought to at least be sources pointing out a game as being particularly important, unusual, or representative for us to include it as such. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep the sections as per consensus at WP:Chess, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I won't speak to chess, but for any sport, I would consider a list of "notable matches" to be a flaw in the article. Such notable events should be covered in prose form as part of the athlete's main biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talkcontribs)
    • I agree with the above – this is what the career section is for. If a major player has many notable games, then this could be span out into a list article. SFB 01:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U Craiova 1948 CS listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for U Craiova 1948 CS to be moved to CS Universitatea Craiova. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Pato (game) listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pato (game) to be moved to Pato. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Screen sports[edit]

Any better categories here? An interesting phenomena, that seems to be using a Konglish term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Xare: Is this a hoax? Is it notable?[edit]

An unreferneced stub from 2009. Is this notable? Could it be a hoax? I see a few non-wiki mentions but they could have been inspired by a long-standing hoax. If it is not a hoax, maybe it should be merged somewhere? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of it, until now, but this YouTube video seems to show us the game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEedhJGg5Tw HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
If it can't be verified it should be deleted. It doesn't provide any cultural context, nor sufficient detail to distinguish it from pelota.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
No thoughts on the video? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
People posting self-published videos on YouTube isn't reliable sourcing, and it's not enough to figure out if it's actually a different game from pelota. We just don't have information, so there's no substance to work with. Even if we had a rulebook, etc., there still the notability matter. There are at least tens of thousands of games and sports around the world, but only a tiny fraction should have articles here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It's mentioned among several other rules variants at Basque pelota. I've removed my {{Prod}}, and {{Merge}} tagged it instead.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  03:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
It's verifiable (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jcUIDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA36) and is also spelt "share", which is a bit tricky to search for. It's questionable as to whether it meets the notability bar but it might. Support merge and redirect to Basque_pelota#Xare_(official_international_specialty), on the possibly dangerous presumption that the es-wiki article accurately reflects its sources. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Xare is most definitely not a hoax, some of my friends play it's probably one of the most spectacular versions of Basque pelota I've tried it myself and it is not easy! That said it's a very little known version. Also the article was not written by anyone who has seen the game played because there is no net and the players do not face each other but face the front wall of the court and the game is played like squash. There is nothing really to merge into the article except maybe the description of the movement which is similar to the joko-garbi. The pelote is half caught and then flicked out of the net in the same fluid movement. If you can imagine cracking a whip the backward mouvement is the phase where the pelote enters the net and the forward movement is the one used to flick the pelote out. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
How "spectacular" it is has nothing to do with whether it should be a stand-alone page. That's a matter for WP:GNG. Personal anecdotes about how the game is played don't have anything to do with the discussion, either; we need sources for that.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  12:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • 110 pages of coverage in this journal from the University of Malaga.
  • Quite a few articles from Lecturas educación física y deportes (Buenos Aires)
  • A monograph, possibly self-published but by a legitimate historian (so at least the bibliography should be treated as pointing to evidence of coverage)
  • There's an international competition, and evidence of some news coverage.
With what's visible plus the indications from the bibliographies, I reckon there'd probably be enough out there to pass GNG if someone fluent in Spanish (+Basque?) were inclined to save it. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Possibly, but zero harm of any kind is done by merging it, and doing so won't prejudice against a full article's later re-creation the way an AfD would.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  18:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the treatment of team colors[edit]

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Milwaukee Bucks#RfC for team colors

This is really beyond the Milwaukee Bucks or even sports in particular, and relevant to coverage of organizations and their house styles generally. This touches on all of: MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, in various aspects (see the more detailed discussion below the !vote section).
 — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  19:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Authorised Neutral Athletes listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Authorised Neutral Athletes to be moved to Authorised Neutral Athlete. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

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

IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics to be moved to IAAF World U18 Championships. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Flag templates linking wrong country[edit]

Just found out that there's some sports articles (mainly athletics & swimming) that link to {{ANT}} for Antigua and Barbuda (their IOC code), but link goes to Netherlands Antilles (per ISO code). See also Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles - maybe the same problem with {{BRN}} (Brunei) while meant Bahrain. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, could you please give some examples? Primefac (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I fixed it ANT at 2018 IAAF World U20 Championships, 2016 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 50 metre butterfly and 2016 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 50 metre freestyle. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
It is rather annoying that every organization has a slightly different code for the various countries (you'd think they would throw out the old ones and just agree with a new set), but I don't see there's anything to do other than fix bad template calls when we find them (there's no way we could guarantee accuracy via template). I mean, we could throw in a preview-only warning (much like infoboxes do with bad parameters) but the likelihood of anyone seeing that is rather slim. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me; some of use preview a lot, especially when dealing with fiddly templates and double-especially when they're being laid out in tables.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of "host city" for events held in multiple neighbouring municipalities?[edit]

There's an RM I'm following at the moment in order to move Nagano, Nagano to the base title Nagano, but I think the base title is ambiguous and has no primary topic, so I've been going through the pages that link to it, many of which related to Winter Olympics events. 1998 Winter Olympics refers to "Nagano" as the "host city" but 1998 Winter Olympics#Venues indicates that only five of the fifteen venues were located in Nagano City.

Obviously if all the reliable sources refer to "Nagano" as the "host city" we can't contradict them, but I'm wondering if the "official" sources actually do say "host city" when it is not technically accurate. Has this kind of thing been discussed before? I hardly ever edit sports articles so I don't even know where to start with the research.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is quite common for Winter Olympics to be spread out, outside the host city, although that city is still commonly refered to as the host. I can't comment on the merit of the move itself. CRwikiCA talk 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

King University Tornados listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for King University Tornados to be moved to King Tornado. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Lists of sportsperson are now obsolete[edit]

In my opinion lists as this, like many other similar lists created at the dawn of Wikipedia, today no longer has any reason to exist. before I ask for the deletion, I take a survey here. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to duplicate a potential category with the exact same content. CRwikiCA talk 01:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
See WP:NOTDUPE. Both have their purposes and advantages. Both are good to have. -DJSasso (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

World Championships in XXXX navboxes[edit]

Hi all,

I've recently been doing a lot of updating/creating World Pool championship articles, and saw there is a Template:World championships in 2014 to Template:World championships in 2018 navigational boxes. However, there are obviously a lot of world championships that pre-date this, and a lot of them follow a naming convention. I'm quite happy to create some of these going backwards, however, I'd want a little consensus on what constitutes a world championship. For instance, does the FIFA World Cup qualify as a world championship? This seems like the most notable type of world championship, but is omitted from the template. Is this because it's known as a "World Cup", rather than a "World Championship"? Many Thanks, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIFA World Cup is listed as Association football under Summer sports. There are many football codes and "Association football" is the name Wikipedia generally uses in articles which are not country-specific. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
By the way, I once started on {{World championships in year}} but abandoned it after realizing how often World championships change name and year cycle. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense, I didn't realise this was under Association football (I was simply looking for football). Good shout. I'll try my best to backdate some templates. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: It's inefficent to make a large number of yearly templates. Each time a new sport is added, it has to be added to every year there was a championship. If I write more documentation for {{World championships in year}} then would you be willing to add data about the name and years of World championships in various sports? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
PrimeHunter - I would be happy to give it a go. Sadly, this sort of this will always be rolling, this looks like a good solution Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I see you are already off to a good start. {{World championships in 2013}} could simply contain {{World championships in year|2013}}. Then {{World championships in year}} uses its data to determine which links to add for that year. It takes time to add the data but then we could immediately make yearly templates going back to 1930 or whatever. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Indeed. Seems like a phenominal idea! I'm having a slight issue with the conditional formatting, as I'd like it to look similar to how it already does in {{World championships in 2015}}, with disciplines in brackets from the original sports. This is fine to do if they are all played in a year, such as pool for:

However, when one isn't played, it creates an open bracket such as:

Any ideas? I'm sure it's something super easy to fix, but I'm a little dim when it comes to this sort of stuff. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The list rendering works better without empty asterisks.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Ah! I did try that, but for some reason, I changed it back. Thanks for your help. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a question - can the indoor sports really be called "summer sports"? Basketball, futsal, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, table tennis, different martial arts/combat sports etc. The competitions are often held in winter also. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter - I'm not entirely sure what I am doing incorrectly. This edit seems to destroy the template; and I can't work out why. I've tried removing the conditions, and all sorts, but the template seems fine with single letters, but not full words or links. Any ideas? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Fixed by reducing test cases in the documentation.[2] The template was actually working when it looked broken but the documentation was unable to display 89 years at the same time due to Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
I figured it was an issue with size limits, but I couldn't work it out. Thanks. I've now completed the Winter sports section (all sports from the 2015 Template). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Update - I've put on all of the tournaments from the 2015 template, and is nearly finished {{World championships in year}}. Is there any other world championships that need adding? - The template needs some older dates changed, and I feel it may be in flux quite a bit, but looks good to me. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Great work. I guess we still miss some 2016–18 championships which were not held in 2015. I don't think events from the World Table Tennis Championships should have separate links when they were at the same time and place. Imagine if every event at the athletics and aquatics championships had separate links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── - Makes perfect sense. I'll adjust. There will also be other events that are not covered by this (Such as retired world championships), but I feel like these will simply be added over time by editors. I can see an issue regarding spreading the template though, I'm not sure on the best way to attach these to the thousands of articles it covers. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this template. Biathlon appears in both summer and winter in the 2017 template. Also should para athletics be moved into a bracket after athletics like swimming? GhostOrchid35 (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
No idea on the Biathlon - After a while, all the sports merge into one! Changed. - As for the para athletics, it's an odd one. Usually, this is fine, but I'd have to have some thoughts on how to actually implement this. We have athletics world championships, and this would be fine, as a bracketed option, but this isn't always the case. There are some years where there is para athletics, and no athletics. I'll have a bit of a play. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 Done Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

2018 in ice sports listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2018 in ice sports to be moved to 2017–18 in ice sports. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

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

2018 in ice sports listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2018 in ice sports to be moved to 2017–18 in ice sports. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Nicholls State Colonels listed at Requested moves[edit]

Information.svg

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nicholls State Colonels to be moved to Nicholls Colonels. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

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

RfC at Talk:Sport in Australia[edit]

There is an RFC on Population-Wide Metrics at Talk:Sport in Australia Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation. Join in the fun and frolic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)