Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8


classification renaming

See talk:Disability table tennis classification ; talk:Disability racquetball classification ; talk:Disability sailing classification ; talk:Paralympic powerlifting classification ; talk:Disability judo classification ; talk:Disabled lawn bowls player classification where this rename is proposed. -- (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disability golf classificationBlind golf classification - This has been proposed at talk:Disability golf classification -- (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Classes =/= Classification. --LauraHale (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
wikt:classification is the manner of placing things in classes. -- (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Related requested move

The usage of Arrows is under discussion, see Talk:Arrows, where the page is suggested to be renamed to Arrows (F1) so that it can be redirected to Arrow as the plural form. -- (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

High jump and others

I ask you if we can delete the references to the Anglo-Saxon measures in the articles of athletics, as the international federation is not using them. --Kasper2006 (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Requested moves

Hi. This is to let you know of Requested moves at:

--Stfg (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Colorado Rockies

I was wondering. Should we have Colorado Rockies as the disambiguation page & move the MLB team article to Colorado Rockies (MLB)? Note, we have Colorado Rockies (NHL). GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I would oppose that. The "Colorado Rockies" only played in the NHL for six years, and that was thirty years ago (yes, the team was also in Kansas City and still exists in New Jersey, but I'm talking about their time in Colorado only). The baseball team should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: Baseball team is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.—Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose It is very clear that the baseball team is the primary topic. A 20 year baseball team vs a 6 year hockey team...not even close. Besides which when we typically have a team that no longer exists and a current team we give the current team primary topic status. See Winnipeg Jets and Winnipeg Jets (1972–96) for the best example of a current team and an old team. Same sport of course but it is the same idea. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry dude, but the baseball team is clearly the primary topic here. Also, there is no need for a disambiguation page with only two entries. Resolute 18:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Yeah, that's a bad idea. Very few people are gonna be looking for the hockey team, and if they do, they can go to the disambiguation page. Go Phightins! 19:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Never heard of the NHL team. --LauraHale (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
You'd pretty much have to be a hockey historian at this point to know of or care about the old Rockies. In fact, one user at Talk:Lanny McDonald was so convinced there had never been a hockey team by this name, they demanded that we change the mentions of Colorado Rockies to Colorado Avalanche in that article... even though Lanny played in Colorado 15 years before the team arrived! Resolute 22:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Certainly an opportunity is available to educate such editors, wouldn't you both agree, Resolute & particularly LauraHale? GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Sure don't. We don't ignore WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to suit one's whims. The right article is at this namespace. Resolute 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
One's whims? Anyways, we're missing a chance to educate less familiar editors. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
More accurately, we're missing a chance to annoy readers my making them make an extra click to get to the baseball team. Resolute 23:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
@ GoodDay, As there is the issue of least surprise, we don't want to educate them by pointing them at a topic that is unrelated to what they are looking for. I wouldn't necessarily object to a disambiguation hat at the top of the article, but not moving the article to Colorado Rockies (MLB) to have a disambiguation sit at the primary topic page. --LauraHale (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about use of word "earn" to describe winning medals

LauraHale and I are having a dispute about whether to use the word "earned" rather than "won" to describe winning of medals, in a phrase like "She earned/won three gold medals". I believe the use of "earned" is non-neutral as it implies effort and honesty which, while probably true in the vast majority of cases, shouldn't be assumed to be the case; did Lance Armstrong "earn" the seven yellow jerseys that he received? Therefore, I don't think we should use the word "earn" when we have the perfectly good word "won" at our disposal which has no value judgements attached to it. Laura disagrees with this assessment, believing that the word "earned" is neutral. What do you all think ... could it be an English dialect issue? See the conversation at User talk:LauraHale#Earning medals and User talk:Graham87# Medals earned, and please reply here to keep the conversation in one place. Graham87 09:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I have also noted this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch#"Earning" medals. Graham87 09:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not NPOV. Medals are earned. You WIN the lottery. You do not win medals. Medals are earned. I've never ever heard of anyone before suggesting this phrase is WP:NPOV. The phrase is used in Michael Phelps, Fivay High School, Italy at the 1920 Summer Olympics, Speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Archery at the 1988 Summer Olympics, Speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Switzerland at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Short track speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Sweden at the 2006 Winter Olympics and 245 other pages. The usage in sport is absolutely correct. It is correct by definition and is not in violation of point of view. It would be point of view to imply getting the medal was by pure chance, which insisting on winning over earning does.--LauraHale (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no dispute here. The word is perfectly acceptable and neutral. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a Google search in English Wikipedia pages for won+gold medal returns 93,400 results while an equivalent search using "earned" returns 10,200 results. The defenition of "earn" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary implies effort/honesty (see sense 2B), while the equivalent definition for "win" does not imply luck (see sense 1 under "intransitive verb"). Graham87 10:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I (and Google: 1,470,000 "won a medal" vs 182,000 "earned a medal") am on the side of Graham. I have no doubt, for me there is no dispute, the dawn of time you win a medal, you earn a salary. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 12:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

We're doing that? 317,000 results for "earned a gold medal", 360,000 results for "earned a silver medal", 425,000 for "earned a bronze medal", 32,300 for "earned an Olympic medal". Professional athletes get salaries, which they earn by competing. Earn is neutral. Both uses are acceptable. earn means "to obtain". Preferred wording choice is not the same as neutrality, and I see no evidence that the phrase is non-neutral. Graham's usage is his preference. --LauraHale (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I find the google test to be spurious. Frequently to earn a medal one has to win an event. Thus won and medal will appear proximally. Earning a medal is natural and proper encyclopedic vernacular.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I disagree that the word "earned" is a violation of NPOV. As Graham87 notes, it does imply effort and honesty, which is true in the vast majority of the cases. It is appropriate to eschew the term, or remove if once added, when facts come to light indicating it wasn't appropriate, but it is an over-reaction to avoid using it because it might not be the case in some instances.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry Graham, but in my view, your argument is the POV one. Your argument presumes that all competitors are uncaught cheaters. Moreover, your example also argues against using "won". After all, did Lance Armstrong win those Tour de Frances? The Tour now says no. Resolute 14:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── But in that mad mad world we live in? ;-) It seems like a surreal discussion. ;-) I win a race. I win a competition. I win a medal. It is a simple syllogism, I never heard say "I earn a race". I repeat "I earn a salary" not a medal. Do you believe in Sports Illustrated? After a long layoff, Rebecca Twigg won a medal in Barcelona and a fifth world title this summer --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

  • "Win" is preferable, it is a simple statement of fact. "Earn" implies some kind of moral entitlement, quite apart from matters of dishonesty, there are generally accepted to be elements of skill, effort and luck. Earned is a hairsbreadth away from "deserved". Rich Farmbrough, 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC).
    Yes, if you finish as the top competitor in your discipline, you deserve whatever prize you won. And through your hard work, you earned it. One can argue in a specific context that one word is better than the other for various reasons. Graham87's reason is not one of them, however. Resolute 19:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
    Suppose the favourite breaks a leg? There's a hundred reasons that "deserve" or "earn" can be disputed. Avoiding the term does not mean we are belittling gold medal winners, just as when we avoid "unfortunately" in matters of early deaths it does not mean we are rejoicing in these deaths. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC).

The truly neutral option would be "received a gold medal" or "was awarded a gold medal". Neither of these can change after the fact no matter what.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Both good. Often "the" gold medal, of course. Rich Farmbrough, 20:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC).
Sports Illustrated uses both:
  • here: "the U.S. men had earned just three medals since Greg Louganis won his second gold in 1988."
  • and here: "Federer earned his country's second medal."--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, folks. I'm really curious now whether this is partly a dialect issue. Kasper, which dialect/s of English are you most comfortable with? (I know that your user page says your native language is Italian). I asked my mother (who speaks Irish/Scottish English) and she said exactly the same thing as you did). I agree with Rich that "to earn" (outside the context of money) almost means "to deserve"; you can say a child earned an ice-cream for being good, and many people agreed that Australian Paralympic equestrian competitor Julie Higgins "earned" her 2000 gold medals due to what she went through to get them. "Earned a gold medal" sounds absolutely hideous to me and a couple of other Aussies who I've asked about it. The fac that some people above from America/Canada seem to have no problem with the phrase indicates that it could be a dialect issue, not necessarily one of neutrality (though that is a problem, as discussed above). "Won a gold medal" seems to be far more common than any of the other uses noted above (though per Google, "was awarded a gold medal" seems to be more common for non-sporting events). Graham87 05:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Classification to Disability Classification redirects

Racquetball classification , Table tennis classification , Powerlifting classification , Template:Basketball classifications , Template:Swimming classifications , Template:Cycling classifications , Template:Athletics classifications , have been nominated for deletion, please see WP:RFD. -- (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A template created specifically to be used in external links ...

...I refer to this {{Sports-reference}}, it's preferable to use it as EL rather than as inline source? It's otherwise justifiable an user that rolls back who inserts it? --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

dual player?

See Talk:John Bunyan (Kerry GAA), where the disambiguatory use of the term "dual player" is being discussed -- (talk) 07:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Rfc at Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada

There is an Rfc at Major professional sports teams of the United States and Canada regarding how the teams should be listed on that page. You are invited to comment. Angryapathy (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Is a dutch antillean athlete a dutch athlete?

If so The Netherlands could field six athletes in the 100 meter race at the Olympics, not three. --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, by nationality they were. No, by sport team. It's the same way a Puerto Rican athlete is an American athlete by nationality, but there are separate teams for Puerto Rico and the USA. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely not «The Netherlands Antilles was an autonomous Caribbean country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands.», but Antillean citizens do not have the Dutch nationality. Please someone else is expressed about. --Kasper2006 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
They held Dutch nationality; their passports were those of the Netherlands. There was no "Dutch Antillean" passport. The Netherlands Antilles was a country, but not a sovereign state at international law. Kind of like Scotland. There is no Scottish nationality at international law—they are UK nationals and they carry UK passports. But there is a Scottish nationality culturally and socially. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
No, Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom >>> do't exist "Sctland nationality" a Scotland citizens have "British nationality". Netherland Antilles was an <bis>AUTONOMOUS Caribbean country within the Kingdom of the Netherlands >>> a Dutch Antillean citizens has "Dutch Antillean nationality" absolutely not "Dutch nationality". Is not automatic the "acquisition of Dutch nationality" for a native "Dutch antillean" (see [[Dutch_nationality_law#By_naturalisation|Acquisition of nationality by naturalization]. In conclusion Netherlands Antilles People are People of Netherlands Antillen >>> Nationality: Noun and adjective--Dutch Antillean(s).. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I still think you're a bit confused about certain issues, but whatever. I was just trying to help you with an analogy. I wasn't trying to draw an exact parallel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Until someone else involved in the discussion, we could go on to infinity. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

National teams

Hi people! I'm new here and I don't know if the point that I'll talk about has been discussed before. I've seen a long time ago in Italian Wikipedia a simple template that makes links to the articles that refers to national teams of all sports, the template "Naz". I translate this to Portuguese Wiki (my native language, I'm Brazilian) (see template "Seleção") and it works very well. The only thing necessary is to create one template listing the sports (as in pt:Predefinição:Seleção/Esporte), one for each country (containing the flag and the name of the country, as in pt:Predefinição:Seleção/BRA) and one that makes all work (as pt:Predefinição:Seleção). What do you think about it?

Sorry my poor English... Gustavo Tell me! 17:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

We do have templates that serve this function, though I do not believe we have one that adapts to multiple sports like that. But, for example, we have {{ih}}, which is for international ice hockey teams, so {{ih|Canada}} yields:  Canada. Resolute 17:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
We in Portuguese Wiki have one template for each contry and for each sport. For example, we have {{BRAvm}} for Brazil men's national volleyball team and {{BRAvf}} for women. The templates in English are more simple. But, what do you think about creating one template that adapts to multiple sports? It could economize some bytes of pages... Gustavo Tell me! 19:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Would be useful for athletics like hockey. {{ath}} for athletics like is  Italy for hockey. --Kasper2006 (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I can create a sketch of this template and then we could discuss about it, OK for all? Gustavo Tell me! 05:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
OK for me. --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on appropriateness of individual event articles at VPP

After an ANI relating to the matter, I'm starting a discussion on the appropriate of articles on individual events at competitions like the Olympics and other international competitions. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 100#Appropriateness of individual swimming events (and related). I would appriciate if others could relay this to Wikiprojects that are involved with these types of events/competitions. --MASEM (t) 19:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

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) 02:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

"Professional Hockey League"

Professional Hockey League says in the infobox that it is the Professional Hockey League of Ukraine, as "Professional Hockey League" is a highly generic term, and Ukraine isn't an English-speaking locality, or much featured in English-language hockey media. Does this type of naming for non-English leagues hold up? (generic names used as article titles for non-English leagues) -- (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Medal

FYI, there's a notice at Template talk:Medal wanting to change the way DQs are handled. -- (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

American football GA nomination/List of NFL champions (1920-1969)

I have nominated American football, a top-importance article on this project, for good article status. Additionally, I have nominated List of NFL champions (1920-1969) for featured list status, an article with relevance to the topic of sports in general. If any project members are interested in commenting on either, you are more than welcome to join in the discussion and help improve them even more. Thanks. Toa Nidhiki05 20:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

In the nominated list and "everywhere" else, I would like to see more economy in column-width for all columns whose content is short. In WP Sports articles the paradigm case must be "Losses ^v" for the number of matches lost, where '^v' represents the switch to sort up or down. One technically demanding solution may be tall cells in "row zero" with the switch displayed above or below the label. Simple tactics to shrink the columns include [small] size, lower case, abbreviations without dots, more radical abbreviations (eg, 'Lost' or 'L' for 'Losses'), and empty headings (does the column of superscripts need even 'refs' not to mention 'Refs.'?). --P64 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Electronic sports"

FYI, there's a proposal to create a wikiproject for eSports. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Electronic Sports -- (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideal team awards

Hi, folks! I'm trying to find the articles on ideal team awards, like FIFA World Cup All-Star Team, FIFA/FIFPro World XI, All-NBA Team, Gold Glove Awards and All-American. I want to make an article on the concept in English and Spanish. Can you help me? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ice hockey, North American major league – NHL All-Star Team from 1931
American football, major league – All-Pro from the 1930s, plus year 1920 (according to our article, whose UPI section cites American and National conference teams from 1970 to 1996); see also All-AFL 1960–1969
baseball, major league – Gold Glove Award one fielding team (defense) in 1957, two teams from 1958; Silver Slugger Award two batting/baserunning teams (offense) from 1980
"All-America" teams now comprise amateur players, recently collegiate or secondary school players, which fits their origin in College Football All-America Teams from 1889. Not mentioned in our article, however, Baseball Magazine selected one "All-America" ideal team of major league players, as well as two all-league teams (American and National) annually for several decades from 1908 or soon after. Perhaps there were earlier major league or National League "All-America" baseball teams inspired by the collegiate football example. Cum Posey of Pittsburgh selected at least a few annual teams of Negro Leagues players during the 1930s.
--P64 (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, P64! Any ideas about more international ideal team awards? --NaBUru38 (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

All-America Team in major league baseball

(quoting and continuing myself from above -P64)

Not mentioned in our article All-America, however, Baseball Magazine selected one "All-America" ideal team of major league players, as well as two all-league teams (American and National) annually for several decades from 1908 or soon after. ... -P64 2013-01-25

--from November 1908 for the season just completed: "All-Star League Teams", Baseball Magazine, II:1, 1 page. Available online from LA84 Foundation: visit "Baseball Magazine" at; select "Baseball Magazine article title list, ..."; select 1908; search "All-Star ...". (The LA84 collection is not complete and all of volume I, May to October 1908, seems to be missing.)
Note that this article uses the general description "All-Star team selections". It labels the three teams "All-AL Team", "All-NL Team" and "All-America Team" (without abbreviations). The one "All-America Team" comprises 14 players: 2 catchers, 5 pitchers, and 1 at each of the seven regular positions.
Baseball Magazine published annual all-star team selections to 1950 or so. I have one compilation on a PC currently without input-output capability. --P64 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
The article is ready: Ideal team. Please expand it. Good bye and thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Mountain Pacific Sports Federation

I noticed a while ago that there were some teams missing in the article. I added what I could to the table, but I don't know all the missing information. And the map needs to be fixed too since North Dakota and Wyoming should be blue. I tried leaving a message for the person who first made the map but he hasn't done anything.

I just noticed this since I write about volleyball (though the missing teams are for swimming and diving). I don't know much of anything about fixing mistakes on Wikipedia and I am not really keen to learn. I left a message on the MPSF's discussion page but I don't think anyone's looked at it. If I'm leaving this message in the wrong place, sorry, but could it maybe be taken to the right page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested moves

I have started two move requests on articles within the scope of this project: 1, 2. (talk) 15:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Copper Peak

A discussion has started there about improving the article. Any help would be appreciated.Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination for National Football League

The National Football League article is up for good article status. As a significant article in this WikiProject, any project members are invited to comment on or review the nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 01:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Opinions needed on tennis rivalry articles

There is a debate going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Murray rivalry about there being too many or too few tennis rivalry stand-alone articles. Regardless of views, come give us a better cross-section of the wikipedia editor pool so we can get a better feel on how to proceed with the creation of these articles in the future. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposals need input

Any input appreciated. ThanX GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

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? 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial sources

Every time there is unofficial news of a trade, signing, waiver, etc, editors rush to add it to an article as if it was official. I've created the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions to capture how to handle this. It's easier to just drop this on a talk page/edit summary than having to explain this every time. Feel free to improve it.—Bagumba (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Flickr account with lots of files about Catalan sports.

Uploading some photos about womens football, I've discovered a lot of photos taken by a Flickr user, who has covered a lot of various sports events hold in Catalonia. In his account We can find Barcelona and Joventut various basketball matches, also "Clásicos" Barça-Madrid. Also are pictures from the Barcelona's indoor soccer sction (not veterans from association soccer), Some Espanyol, Tarragona, Girona and Barcelona Association football matches, from the Catalan Cup, were usually play youngster or less habitual FCB players. We have also the presentation of Cesc Fàbregas as a FCB player, with former goalkeeper and staff member Andoni Zubizarreta in some photos, An Spain's handball match, and a vaste ammount of photos from different matches of the Spanish indoor rolley hockey league (Were most of the teams are catalan, including a section of Football Club Barcelona).--Coentor (talk) 15:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Vital sports articles

There is currently a discussion taking place here and here regarding whether or not 100 or 200 sports related articles should be included (and which) at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography/Sports and games

Shouldn't WP:WikiProject Biography/Sports and games also be signed onto the {{WPSPORTS}} banner as it is with {{WPBIO}} ? It would sign on like {{WPBIO|sport-work-group=yes}} and the switch could be {{WPSPORT|biography=yes}} -- (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox National Sport Association of the Deaf

{{Infobox National Sport Association of the Deaf}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

United SportsCar Racing

While patrolling new pages, I ran across United SportsCar Racing. I could use some help assessing the series's notability if any of you have time. OlYeller21Talktome 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 Serena Williams tennis season - is the detail ok?

I just wanted some input from other sports editors on the yearly pages being created for Serena Williams. There are many but 2012 Serena Williams tennis season is representative. Is there too much detail? I was thinking it was overly detailed and tagged it as such, at which point the editor who created the pages promptly removed it. There has been some controversy of whether the pages should exist at all but, with consensus wanting them to stay put, should the detail of the prose be cut down or is it about right? Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Eeeeeeeeeh. My first inclination it to say "too much", but practically, I am not sure this is much different than an article on an individual sports team. Also, there are already eight such articles on Serena's seasons, five on Nadal's and probably others. May be a case of trying to close the barn door after the horses escaped. Resolute 19:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The Serena ones were all just created by the same guy so they are brand new. My concern is not that they exist (as you say the horses have escaped) but in summarizing a lot more. I could probably edit these things in half. I tried to do so and tagged them as way to much detail but the guy simply reverts the tags and editing. Tennis doesn't get a lot of people posting their views on the appropriate talk pages so unless they do I wasn't going to tackle the editing alone just to have it reverted. I asked for a 3rd party help and discussed it with an uninvolved editor right here, so I'm trying to find some sort of middle ground with these edits... so far to no avail. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, yeah, I missed the point of your query the first time around. Looking at level of detail, I don't really see it as an issue. 80kb or so doesn't seem excessive when one considers that a large chunk of that will be the tables. Articles on F1 seasons, for instance, are running up to three times that. The one thing I would remove though is the Finals appearances section, since that is simply a duplication of other tables that already note finals appearances. Resolute 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok. I've gotten responses from both sides of the spectrum but at least it gives me parameters. It's got 24k of readable prose but I also care about the quality of the prose. Could you give me an example of a particular F1 driver that has season articles 2-3x the size? I just want to see the level of detail and I don't really follow F1 much. I saw the 3x Indy500 winner Dario Franchitti doesn't have yearly articles, nor Danica Patrick. If you are talking something like 2012 Formula One season, well of course it's bigger since it encompasses ALL drivers. We have day by day articles on Wimbledon also that can get quite large. And we have yearly ITF tennis articles also. But this is an individual player and how she wins a particular set against an over-matched opponent seems trivial to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

College names in athletes' infoboxes

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#College_names_in_athletes.27_infoboxes. —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Oval (Belfast) GA

The Oval (Belfast) has been nominated for GA status. Could a member of the project give it a review? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports connect. Thanks Secret account 03:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


File:Ausublues.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Input request

For all of you who watch this page but not the wikiproject football page, please consider adding your thoughts to my proposal consistently gendering articles on national football teams (and, potentially other sport team names) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/National teams#Proposed change: consistency in article title gendering. Thank you in advance for any contributions to the discussion. Dkreisst (talk) 21:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sports festivals versus sports competitions


Looking for the best place to post this discussion, as it needs to be centralized. I have posted it at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion too.

I'm thinking of the big – hence the location for this discussion – category trees Category:Sports festivals by country and Category:Sports competitions by country. What's the difference, really? And says that sports festivals are to be subcategories of sports competitions, which is the current situation?


HandsomeFella (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

(Year in sports) links

I've really got to ask who thought these were a good idea. I've come across their wide-scale use on at least 3 pages -- NCAA Bowling Championship, NCAA Women's Field Hockey Championship, and FIVB Beach Volleyball World Tour. When a link like 2010 exists next to an entry in a table about the yearly championship in one or another of these events, a reader reasonably expects to be headed to an article that deals directly with them. Not some just-barely-relevant catch-all. The links on the beach volley page are especially baffling, because we do have articles for those tournaments specifically going back as far as 2004. I've since edited in more appropriate links to that page and will do so for the NCAA pages very soon. The bluelinks also make editors believe that articles addressing these topics have already been written, when in fact they have not been. The only way I can even conceive of someone thinking these were a good idea would be out of some misplaced desire to get rid of redlinks at all costs. There's nothing wrong with redlinks and, as said, "impostor" bluelinks can be damaging. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 00:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report}}

Template:Infobox Gliding Grand Prix report (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) seems like it would be redundant to some more generic sport template? Also, the articles that use this template seem to be a particular year edition, but occupying the non-year race article location. -- (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Sports

There is a proposal to redesign Portal:Current events/Sports. Please comment at Portal talk:Current events/Sports#MFD?. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Convention of article names of Canoeists vs Canoers

I'm from WikiProject Kayaking I have just started a discussion on our talk page about the naming convention for Canoeists vs Canoers. We would appreciate your input on the topic. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Difference between venues and arenas?

What's the difference between these two articles: List of indoor arenas in Sweden and Indoor venues in Sweden? Is there a difference between arenas and venues? Otherwise, it seems a good idea to merge the two articles into one. Heymid (contribs) 21:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Académica de Coimbra move request

Hello. There is an ongoing move discussion at Talk:Coimbra Academic Association#Requested move 2. Since it has now been relisted twice it seems time to notify the three tagged projects; WikiProject Portugal, WikiProject Universities and WikiProject Sports. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  • This has now been relisted twice, please, any one to push it one way or the other.... In ictu oculi (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguous categories

Hello project.

I'd like to address the YYYY in Fooan sport category tree. I think these categories are ambiguous and confusing. For instance, the article on the 2013 World Allround Speed Skating Championships is currently categorized in "Category:2013 in Norwegian sport", although it is obviously an international event.

Is this category meant for sport events that occurred in Norway that year, or is it for events involving Norwegian athletes or teams that occurred (anywhere) that year? That is very unclear from its name.

A distinction is necessary. A category is needed for International sports competitions in 2013 hosted by Norway (or whatever you wanna call it, suggestions are welcome), which would hold international events, competitions, etc, hosted by Norway. Strictly national events, and Norwegian participation in international events, would go into 2013 in Norwegian sport.

Suggested year-in-sports tree (wiki-linked for convenience):

As you can see, the Swedish women's team's participation in the various stages of the UEFA Women's Euro 2013 is placed in "2013 in Swedish football", while the main article is instead placed in "International sports competitions in 2013 hosted by Sweden".

Year-in-country tree is unchanged:

HandsomeFella (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What is "International" competition? Does the term imply that contestants represent nations, so that a nation may be said to win each contest that has a winner? Or merely that it is not restricted to contestants from a particular nation?
There is no single answer, as there is no general meaning of "Open" competition.
Professional tennis and golf have many competitions with national names that are international in the weak sense. To win the U.S. Open is not to be champion of the U.S., merely U.S. Open champion, which is not a national achievement. (I don't know how widely this is true. Open may mean there is no restriction to women only, students only, amateurs only, etc. In another sport, say chess, there may be a U.S. Open tournament that does crown a national champion.)
A world championship competition located in Norway does not crown a Norwegian champion. Probably it is Norwegian in that a Norwegian national association has bid successfully to host that rendition of the ongoing series. Offhand I think our article about such a world championship does belong in Norwegian as well as international or world categories.
--P64 (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Keep the current system. Changing it would be a huge work with no benefit outweighing the problems. Category:Sports by country and year has around 3700 contry+year combinations. Most of them are small categories and would be even smaller if international competitions are split out. The topics are close enough that placing them in the same category is not a problem, and for many articles it would be hard to say where to place them. Competitions with varying host country like World Championships would clearly belong in the international category, but what about all the regular tournaments hosted in the same country, usually the same city, every year. Is it really better to say 2012 Copenhagen Masters is "hosted" by Denmark than saying it's in Danish sport? Succinct category names are good. "International sports competitions in 2013 hosted by Sweden" is awfully long compared to "2013 in Swedish sport" which fits well enough for a category including international competitions in Sweden. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep the current system, with international events in a general category for the country where it is held, either “1973 in Foo sport” or “1973 in Foo football” if there is a “by-year” or “by-season” category for particular sports in a country. And also in the “by-year” category for the sport eg “1973 in Skiing” and perhaps “1973 in European sport” if it is an European competition. Many (not all?) sports have a general subcategory by country and sport eg Category:International association football competitions hosted by Norway but they do not warrant a separate “by-year in Norway” category. The 1996 Olympics category Category:1996 Summer Olympics is in the “by-year” categories “1996 in multi-sport events” and “1996 in American sports” and could be in “1996 in Georgia (state)” also. Many smaller countries may stage the odd international sports competition, but with a couple of articles on sports events a year barely warrant even a “sports by year” subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

lot of mistakes in World Fencing Championships articles

I checked some of the championships pages 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997 and the data didn't match up between events medalist and medal tables. I'm not sure which one was correct, but i went with the events one. I have no idea where to check them, can someone do that with all of the championships articles? Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Scudetto in Italy and wrong redirects

Hello, I just would like to signal this new discussion I just opened here. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 08:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sport in the Soviet Union by year

There is no such category at present eg Category:1973 in Soviet sport, and I propose to create the series; the Soviet Union was prominent in sport.Hugo999 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just go ahead when you have something to place in the category. It follows an established pattern at Category:1973 in sports by country, Category:Years in Russian sport and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem, will go ahead (no shortage of articles for any year). But the parent (see Category:Sports by country and year) will be Category:Soviet sport by year to follow the usual format. I think the preferred Russian parent category would be "Russian sport by year". Hugo999 (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories created (1936 to 1991), to do are Category:Soviet League seasons and Category:Ice hockey in the Soviet Union articles. Also Category:Latvian SSR Higher League and Category:LFF Lyga for 1940 or 1941 (?) to 1991; which should be "19XX in Latvia" or "19XX in Lithuania" as well as "19XX in Soviet football". Hugo999 (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
All done Note:Year categories for Soviet football also. Hugo999 (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


Should season articles carry the word "season" ? see Talk:2013–14 Liga MX season -- (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

We make sure they do in seasonal tennis articles, such as in 2013 Andy Murray tennis season. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Varies case-to-case. --Falcadore (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering... what would be a case we wouldn't use it? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Super League I.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Sports

FYI Portal:Current events/Sports has been nominated for deletion; it seems to revolve around updates -- (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject volleyball - invitation to discussion

This is a special invitation for experienced editors to the discussion in WikiProject Volleyball about the proposal for Notability Guide for Volleyball Players. Your wise and kind participation will be highly appreciated. Osplace 18:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ottoz family 17 October has celebrated 99 years of Gabre Gabric

Help! Please see here and here. ;) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SN College Athlete of the Year

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:SN College Athlete of the Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed split

A split of List_of_doping_cases_in_sport has been suggested at Talk:List_of_doping_cases_in_sport#Proposed:_Split_list_by_the_existing_.22sections.22. Please feel free to comment and discuss so that a consensus can be established. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

College basketball team navboxes

Please join discussion at the College Basketball Wikiproject for forming a consensus on the creation of a basic navbox for college basketball teams. CrazyPaco (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Might be useful for various sports (e.g., hockey and baseball): πr2 (tc) 19:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Junior terminology

What is correct:

  • world junior record
  • junior world record
  • world record for juniors
  • other?

e.g. in article titles? See for instance List of world junior records in athletics and Category:Shooting junior men's world record navigational boxes. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Other? world juniors record, world juniors' record ...
This needs Wikipedia consensus or variation by sport (follow IAAF usage for athletics, and so on). Official usages include "junior", "juniors", and "juniors'" in reference to competitions with upper age limits. (The World Bridge Federation is not internally consistent in its junior usage even in proper nouns. It uses "women" rather "women's" and I suppose that some other sporting authorities do so. Thus some sport has Junior Women records.)
Re possible Wikipedia consensus: Offhand, supposing the sport should be identified primarily as in your Shooting example, I prefer
  • athletics world records for juniors
  • speed skating world records for juniors
--P64 (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

England FH Squad 2012 Champions Trophy listed at Redirects for discussion


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect England FH Squad 2012 Champions Trophy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Athletes' heights

Just seeking a wider range of input from informed persons at Template_talk:Height#rfc_97AACED.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics

The title of Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics -- (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Bandy

I have proposed to create a WikiProject for bandy. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Bandy. Andrew S. Knight (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nenad Perunicic

Dear sports enthusiasts: This old abandoned Afc submission is soon to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable player? Should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Régis Rey

Please, see Talk:Régis Rey‎. Thanks, --Manuguf (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Massachusetts Minutemen and Minutewomen

The usage of Massachusetts Minutemen and Minutewomen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:UMass Minutemen and Minutewomen -- (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Boston Minutemen

The usage of Boston Minutemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Boston Minutemen for the discussion -- (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"List of XYZ sponsorships" articles

I have a concern/gripe about the following articles

These are all massive lists with no apparent criteria for inclusion, generally poorly sourced and are, in my opinion, the textbook example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, because basically any competitive athlete can get a sponsorship (and Nike, Inc.#Current sponsorships has a similar problem). Is there a way to define these lists better? My instinct is to list them for deletion, but I believe one or more has gone through AFD already. Now, sponsorship itself is a worthy topic of discussion, but these lists are basically what Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Mosmof (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

assistant referee

The usage of Assistant referee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Assistant referee (association football) -- (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Invictus Games

I've created a stub on the recently announced Invictus Games, which may be of interest to members of this project. Sadly my sporting knowledge is limited, so please feel free to add or expand anything I've missed. I think we may also need to start an article about the US Warrior Games if we don't already have it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Great West Conference navbox

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Great West Conference navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

UNLV Rebels

For anyone with interest and time, the article needs help from objective editors. It's a public relations dream, with swaths of copyright violations. JNW (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Categories for renaming

There is a CfR you might be interested in discussing over at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 7#Mt. SAC athletics. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sports festivals

Hi all - please note I have requested that all "sports festival" categories be renamed to "International sports competitions". Please contribute to the discussion. SFB 12:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sports templates

Hi. My question might be odd but you see, Wikipedia have two templates: one is {{WPSports}}, the other is {{WPBiography}}, both are sports related, but the latter one is sports and games, which might confuse people into believing that football for example is a game. Is it O.K. to use both? Someone told me that its fine, so I added the template to some athletes (like over 500). If its not (and you will cite a guideline), then I will remove the {{WPSports}} template from athlete related articles (but then there should be a good reason for its existence). Many thanks in advance.--Mishae (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really following the risk of confusion you present. The Biography project's workgroup is "sports and games", and I think people would be no more confused about football being a "game" than they would checkers being a "sport". Regardless, it is certainly okay to use both - these templates mark an article as being within the scope of each respective project, and there is no limit to the number of projects an article can be associated with. However, I personally rarely use {{WPSports}} as nearly every major sport has a project of its own that is more relevant, e.g.: {{WikiProject Football}}. Resolute 22:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, as long as it doesn't violate consensus, I will use both. Plus some users do both either way and as long as it doesn't breach any of the consensus policies it shall be a good practice.--Mishae (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
The usual action is to check if there is a more sport-specific project and use that one instead of WPSports if so. Broadly, WPSports is added when the topic is either (a) an important topic to sport in general or many sports (e.g. running, Pitch (sports field), or (b) no more-specific project for that topic area exists (e.g. Olympic weightlifting). SFB 09:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Strongman/Strength sports/Strength athlete/Strength athletics

I've come across a definition-jumble....Strength sports goes to strength athletics, which is defined there as strongman sports, but strength athlete covers the usual inclusion of throwers, football players, powerlifters and strongman. The use of "strength athletics" to refer to strongman competitions seem to have some usage-citation but there is, to me anyway, a clear delineation between "strongman" as such and the broader "strength athlete" which includes Olympic lifters, powerlifters, discus/shot etc.....There's some other articles in the respective categories on these pages, I'm not sure where to start to straighten out the terminology and figured better to seek consensual input.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Category:Strength athletics, Category:Strongmen and Category:Strongmen competitions exist; the former two seem redundant and IMO the strength athletics category shouldn't be strongman-only. I see I got "strength sports" from {{Strength Sports}} which also includes arm wrestling, mas-wrestling and kettlebell....Skookum1 (talk) 05:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I think this issue is more to do with the topic area within English culture. Unlike other sports, no organisation or company has dominated this area so it remains quite fluid. Obviously there is a lot of similarity between, say, a shot putter, a powerlifter, World's Strongest Men athletes, highland games athletes, and even arm wrestlers and old-style strongmen. I know of at least six major international organisations that cover those topic areas and have their own definitions. I think old-style strongmen (pre-20th century) is a topic that could stand on its own, but a lot of research would be needed to justify that (plenty of interesting shared history with professional wrestling, circus acts, freak shows, all the way to Milo of Croton). SFB 10:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Tori Murden

I'm curious about how we might expand the article on Tori Murden in relation to research on extreme sports and/or heroic efforts in sporting events (e.g. skiing or rowing). Since there are new research opportunities involved in sports and/or kinesiology, who might be willing to add these kinds of resources in understanding the kinds of experiences that Tori Murden underwent as she became the first woman to row across the Atlantic, etc.? Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

2013 World Rowing Championships - need help with identifying athletes on photos

Hello All! South Korea's official flickr account has tons of photos of the 2013 World Rowing Championships, all cc-by-sa-2.0 licenced. unfortunately people are not named in the tags. Would need some help in identifying the athletes... There are a handful of photos only, the rest are about the opening and closing ceremony. Commons:Category:2013 World Rowing Championships Thank you in advance for the help!!! Teemeah 편지 (letter) 18:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

RfC: How should articles on national sports teams handle gendered teams?

No consensus for the question: should articles about national sports teams include "men's" or "women's" in the title? Almost no one was in favor of a blanket rule to specify gender in all sports team article titles. Some said the gender could be specified in some cases but it should be considered on a case by case basis, while others said no change to existing articles is needed or desirable. (non-admin closure) KeithbobTalk 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been a long-running dispute at Talk:Australian national association football team that has spiralled out into a number of requested moves, ANI threads and much else besides.

Below are two summaries of the dispute from User:Lukeno94 and User:Pi zero:

*The major bone of contention is twofold; should this particular article contain some reference to the male gender in the title or not, and should an article located at this title be a DAB or a mixture of both team's genders? There is also the fairly perennial "association football" vs "soccer" debate as well, as well as a disputed POV tag. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Fwiw, my understanding of what's gone on here (alas, not so admirably succinct as the preceding):
  1. Some people objected to an article whose title says it's the national team, while the content says it's only going to cover the men's team, for the women's team go to another article whose title specifies "women's".
  2. A proposal was made to fix this perceived neutrality problem by renaming this article to have a name that specifies "men's", parallel to the other article whose name specifies "women's".
  3. Some people objected to the move on the grounds of PRIMARYTOPIC. Proponents said PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply to a long title that isn't the most commonly used name for the thing. Some opponents, invoking PRIMARYTOPIC, further maintained that any sexism in the title passively reflects existing sexism in the culture, while some proponents maintained that the article actively promotes sexism.
  4. The neutrality issue got mentioned in the move discussions, where some people maintained the hatnote was sufficient while others claimed the hatnote doesn't help with the sexism problem. It was suggested that if the article doesn't get moved, the other way to fix the neutrality problem would be to cover both the men's and women's teams in this article.
  5. The move was proposed and discussed twice, with both discussions closed as "no consensus". Afaics, no formal discussion has taken place regarding the neutrality problem specifically, which would presumably be the basis on which one would claim that the closure of the move proposals does not bear on the neutrality issue.
Anyway, that's my understanding of about how things have gone. To be clear, I'm one of those who wrote and voted in favor of the move, suggested PRIMARYTOPIC doesn't apply, and still maintain that the article in its current form is offensively sexist; so, my attempt to neutrally summarize things is made while holding those positions. --Pi zero (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the best course of action is to have a formal RfC on the issues related to this. The general question seems to be: should articles about national sports teams include "men's" or "women's" in the title? Please express your views calmly and civilly and assume good faith of others in this discussion. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

List of possible affected articles


  • Add your name and reasons here


  • This really needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. In association football, for example, the men's sport is far more popular and prominent than the women's version. Therefore it seems reasonable to have England national football team (referring to the men's team) located where it is, as it is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and to have England women's national football team where it is. The same goes for most countries in association football, including Australia, where TWO recent RMs have ended in no move. This will also seem to apply to most sports where the male version is more popular/prominent than the women's version. There are exceptions - for example United States men's national soccer team and United States women's national soccer team, as they share equal prominence in the States. Those names are also suitable. As I have said, this needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. For association football, at least, the answer here is no. GiantSnowman 18:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I can see both sides of this. But the fact that every single WP:Wikilink will have to be piped makes me lean towards no.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
So, it might be the right thing to do, but it would create a lot of work, eh? Hmmmmm HiLo48 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Along with the rest of the reasons, e.g. Primary topic. It's not "a lot of work" to create piped links, but why force editors into excessive amounts of it (literally 100%) when it can rightly be avoided?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If we added (men) and (women) to the end of the pagenames, the suffix will be automatically chopped off by adding a '|' at the end of the wikilink. Has that suffix approach been proposed and rejected previously? Also, there does not need to be a problem with updating all the existing articles, or even needing to use the pipe trick. 'sportsteam' could redirect to 'sportsteam (men)' when the male sport is primary (the same applies if using the existing 'Country [women/men] sportsteam' naming convention). Problem solved. Then the application of PRIMARY is whether to redirect or to dab. For many sports and countries, a redirect to the mens team makes sense. However there are also many sports that dab pages make sense, e.g. tennis. By putting 'men' and 'women' in the title to begin with, the pagenames are stable, with the decision to redirect or dab able to be reviewed and changed easily if/when the balance has shifted, without the "oh noes, we'll need to do extra maintenance" argument entering into the discussion. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most definitely has to be done on a case by case basis. In many cases one is much more the primary topic than the other. And in some cases the sport is actually named in common use with the gender included in it because it has alternate rules to the other gender version. -DJSasso (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


Add any more general comments here.

  • I do not agree with the case-by-case basis. If we were to follow that, how would we determine what the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is? Clearly the United States men's national soccer team is the primary topic with 218,456 hits in the last 90 days [1], compared to 67,344 hits for the women's team [2]. There are very few sports in the world that are dominated by female participants, so what determines whether an article needs a gender title or not?--2nyte (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the first sentence relates to the rest of your post. Anyway, I'm glad you turned up. You have a job to do. One reason we're here is your declaration back at the Australian page that "tens of thousands" of articles would be affected. There's a section above titled List of possible affected articles. Get to it. We're all waiting, and it's going to take you a while. HiLo48 (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No, thankyou. If we were just to move Australia national association football team to a gender specific title, we would then have to move another 6 articles relating to the team. I then suspect you would want to move Australia national under-20 association football team, Australia national under-17 association football team and maybe Australia national under-23 association football team, Australia national beach soccer team and Australia national futsal team for consistency? Along with those moves we would then have to ensure the thousands of hyperlinks on player and manager articles are changed, along with any other link to the respective articles. Then there are a few categories (on thousands of articles) we would have to change to correspond with the addition of gender in the article titles.--2nyte (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
DO NOT base your argument on what you claim I would "then" do, nor even your claim that "we would then have to move..." We wouldn't HAVE TO move anything else. That's the whole weakness in your argument. You don't seem to actually have one for the basic issue. HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not arguing the issue nor opposing it, I am simply discussing it.--2nyte (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
You're avoiding it where it matters. HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
If this is about gender equality then we should change every national sport team title to a gender specific one. If this is about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC then we should use a case-by-case basis, but as I said above, there are very few sports in the world that are dominated by female participants (including association football in Australia), so almost every national sport team article title would be national team or women's national team.--2nyte (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with virtually everything in that post. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Care to elaborate?--2nyte (talk) 03:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
In the same way that you are so absolutely determined to not allow the use of the name Soccer in Australia that you will compromise all the way from "Football" to the name nobody has ever heard of, "Association football", your absolute determination that the name of the Socceroos article shall not change leads you on to this massive deflection about tens of thousands of other articles being forced to change. You do stand your ground strongly on things that you somehow think are critically important. Strongly, but not rationally. One you reach this mindset, nothing is really worth saying in argument against your position, irrelevant and wrong though it is. HiLo48 (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
@HiLo: Out of curiousity, are you going to post a "yes" rationale or will you just continue baiting editors who are expressing their thoughts in this RfC? (talk) 13:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No. See "This is a faulty RfC" below. It's the stubborn, dishonest opposition of editors like 2nyte that's wasting the time of all of us here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48, it is not as simple as moving Australia national association football team to Australia men's national association football team and that's the end of it. I do not want to half ass this change, and that is exactly what you want, to do as little effort as possible with almost no benefit.--2nyte (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No. The truth is that you want to block a simple, rational change, for reasons you haven't actually been able to explain, by stupidly claiming that "tens of thousands" of other articles would also have to immediately change. That ridiculous statement alone should probably be the subject of this RfC, because it's the real reason we're here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
No, the truth is you want to do as little effort as possible. You don't want to correct the thousands of hyperlinks to the article, you don't want to change the categories to gender specific, you don't want to move the related articles (history/results/records/managers/captains) to gender specific titles, you don't want to change any of the youth teams to gender specific titles and you don't care about any other article (thousands of them) that has a "gender biased" title. You want to do as little effort as possible with almost no benefit.--2nyte (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The "too much work" argument is a new one, not really very convincing, I'm sure there will be several willing volunteers! Rather than spending this thread attacking one another, why not state both your own cases and wait for other input? Sionk (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that it is too much work, I'm explaining what must be done if we are to do this properly. HiLo48 seems to think that the first and only thing that needs to be done is a page move, and that is wishful thinking.--2nyte (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yawn. HiLo48 (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not sure if it is legal for national teams for football, but a lot of sports and at a range of levels, t-ex- chess and golf, women are allowed to participate in competition against male in "mens class", while men are not allowed to compete in competition in the "woman class". The "mens class" could may be concidered as an open class, rather than a "mens class". Grrahnbahr (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That is true for a number of sports, generally men's sports are just men because women haven't been skilled enough to make the team but it doesn't preclude them from doing so. Ice hockey for example have had female players play in professional "men's" leagues. Wouldn't apply to national teams I assume but it is something to consider. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
In association football that is not the case - male and female have to play seperately after the age of, I think, 11. GiantSnowman 13:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
It's now 15, in England. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a long-neglected issue, principally because sport is largely dominated by discussion about men by men. Wikipedia is no exception. I would encourage all involved to start with the article content. Swathes upon swathes of sports articles do not state that certain competitions involve men exclusively. That is a pretty defining attribute of a sports topic and it is telling that it often goes unsaid. There are some notable exceptions: FIFA World Cup is a good example and Premier League thankfully now mentions this (after an argument I lost to an admin in 2012), but still see National Hockey League and Featured Articles like Manchester United F.C. and Scotland national football team that do not state in the article text that we are talking exclusively about men. Forget the sexism – in sports articles (especially those sports dominated by men) we are collectively failing to do a good job of describing the topic from an encyclopaedic perspective. SFB 13:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The National Hockey League doesn't mention it because it specifically allows women to compete and has done so in the past. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yup. I'm not even certain if the Premier League specifically precludes women from competing if one were capable. As far as things like the FIFA World Cup goes, sometimes you simply don't need to state the obvious. Resolute 13:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid reason for not mentioning the gender split – if anything it is a greater incentive. Your approach suggests that there is nothing remarkable about female participation in these events. Is Manon Rhéaume no more notable than any other man who has competed in a handful of NHL exhibition games? That is so patently not the case. Should we also not discuss the gender disparity in heads of state or CEOs or army generals or Nobel laureates because women are not legally excluded from those positions? If you don't think gender participation is a subject worthy of discussion on topics where one gender predominates (be it women or men), then you are missing the point of encyclopaedic writing. SFB 15:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you want to write an article about gender disparity in sports, go nuts. But you seem more focused on POV-pushing on articles where the topic is, frankly, irrelevant. Resolute 17:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • If you think adding a single sentence stating the gender make up of a sporting competition is "POV-pushing" then I think that says much about you than it does me. SFB 20:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes I do, and no it doesn't. Resolute 22:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I think mentioning it is misleading, and would lead people to believe that women can't play in those leagues. I also think its giving undue weight to something that isn't appropriate and is clearly a POV push on your part. By all means write pages on gender inequality in sports where appropriate, but pushing it in such locations is not appropriate. To use your Nobel laureates example, you wouldn't put up at the top of its page that its an award for men simply because women have not received it as often as men. Or that Generals are men on the top of the Generals page. Or that CEOs are men on the top of the page that is about CEOs. No instead you might write an article say Gender inequality in ice hockey assuming there are sources for such a page. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
  • So you think it is misleading to mention in an article that a competition is open to both men and women, but limited (or no) women have participated? (BTW, I'm talking about article content, not article titles). SFB 10:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a faulty RfC

  • I want something done at Australian national association football team so that the place of the women's team is properly recognised, and so it's not treated as something that's not the Australian national association football team. I think, and have expressly stated back at earlier discussions, that expecting all team articles in Wikipedia and their names to all change at once is nonsensical. The option I seek doesn't come under either the Yes or No options above.
Really, the reason that we're here is that some opposing the change at Australian national association football team argued that it couldn't be handled on a case by case basis, and required global agreement. They and I know full well that they are simply avoiding discussion on the individual case of the Australian national association football team, and they know this will fail. It's bad faith behaviour, and this RfC is pointless. HiLo48 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Except that the women's team and the men's team are two separate teams and don't belong on the same page. The only thing in common between the two is that they come from the same country and play the same sport. So what you seek would not be appropriate other than as a see also link. -DJSasso (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, as there is no community consensus (after 2 RMs!) to add 'men' to the Australian men's team title, a hatnote will suffice to aid navigation to the women's team. GiantSnowman 13:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't even discussing the matter under this heading. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I think HiLo48 has said it pretty well. I'd just add that only one or two oppose !votes came from outside WP:FOOTBALL members. In that sense we've already been to a wider audience and their message was loud and clear. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categories for clubs and for teams

What's the point in having categories for sports teams and categories for sports clubs? They mainly overlap eachother. The only teams which are not club teams I can think of, are national teams. Bandy boy (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Sports At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Sport Photo

Hi everybody,

Half a dozen of french-speaking wikimedians have decided to improve illustrations of sports articles and more generally produce free content of sport events.

Wikimedia France and Wikimedia CH lend us costly photo equipment and help us to obtain accreditations.

Since the beginning of the year, 30 events have been photographed and many different sports.

We maintain a list on Wikipedia (Projet:Sport/Photo). Feel free to make suggestions ! Pyb (talk) 13:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles related to LGBT athletes may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 19:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jaman Lal Sharma

Is there a sports-minded person who would be willing to add appropriate material from the above draft about an Olympic athlete to the existing stub Jaman Lal Sharma? I can help with the attribution if necessary. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Eurocup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Eurocup Basketball -- (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The International Sport Security Conference (ISSC)

Dear sports experts: This old AfC submission appears to be about a notable conference. I'm not sure that it's appropriate to have the names of all the speakers included. Should this be accepted into the encyclopedia, or does it still need work? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Sports At Wikimania 2014 (Updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I just tidied up Category:Argentine sportspeople by creating Category:Argentine sports competitors and filling it with categories of Argentine players, coherently with the upper categories Category:Sportspeople (which includes coaches, players, referees etc.) and Category:Sports competitors (which only includes the players). It should be done with all the subcategories of Category:Sportspeople by nationality, like the ones in it:Categoria:Personalità dello sport per nazionalità. Could someone please provide to help with bots or just by manual edits?

Categories "NATIONALITY sportspeople" should also be moved on Wikidata, from this situation to this situation. Practically, "NATIONALITY sportspeople" (en, simple and Commons) should be replaced in the data pages with "NATIONALITY sports competitors" and connected instead with the corresponding category of it:Categoria:Personalità dello sport per nazionalità.

Thanks in advance for the help :-) --Superchilum(talk to me!) 13:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Sports clubs / Category:Sports teams

Hi everyone. I am linking French pages with other Wikis through Wiki Data (mostly Wiki EN). But as I see that these two categories exist and there is only one article : Sport club I wonder if we could all merge ? Sincerely. Nezdek (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

They mean different things in different parts of the world. In some parts of Europe for example a sports club might have multiple sports teams in different sports. Whereas in North America the terms are used interchangeably often. Looking at our category for sports clubs it mostly encompasses groups which are not teams. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bruno Banani (luger)

Dear sports enthusiasts: This old AfC submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is there anything in it that should be saved and moved to Fuahea Semi ? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)



I'm creating a stub for each participants of the 2014 Acrobatic Gymnastics World Championships. A user add this template, eg. Artur Beliakou. But I don't know what to do. Should I source the content of the infobox ? Should I source each fact with two references ? Pyb (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

One-celled bracket templates

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

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

MaxPreps as a source

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


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

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

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

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

Sasuke (TV series)

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

Sports by year categories before 1850

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

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

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

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

Request for Comment

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


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


Does "fighter" mean "mixed martial artist" or any combat sports fighter (such as boxers, kickboxers, etc?) We are discussing disambiguation at Ed Herman (mixed martial artist) -- (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, WikiProject Sports. You have new messages at WT:BIOG#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've proposed that "fighter" not be used as the disambiguator for mixed martial artists, due to uses in other sports, for the RFC on the matter, please see WT:BIOG -- (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Oregon Ducks Department of Athletics Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Shipwreck Kelly

There is a move discussion; I invite you to improve consensus by commenting. --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sport(s) navigation template names

Looking sown the list of navigational templates related to sport(s) by region, I see that in some places the template name uses an uppercase S (such as {{New York Sports}}), while others use a lowercase s (such as {{Texas sports}}). I think we sjhould fix this - probably go in the direction of lowercase, lthough naming them all to uppercase would be better than the current mix there is. (Note that I'm not proposing editing the thousands of articles using these templates, just renaming the templates, and keeping the redirects around.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

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) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Country pages for the UCI Road World Championships

Hi all, I started a discussion about the notability of the country pages for the UCI Road World Championships. All your comments would be appriaciated. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling#Country pages for the UCI Road World championships. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 13:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Article: List of multi-sport athletes

In reading the article "List of multi-sport athletes", I notice that it is becoming peppered with entries of people who were prominent in one sport, yet had significantly less importance in another. That is not what it is supposed to be. It is my belief that to qualify for this article, a person should qualify for a Wikipedia article even if he/she played only one of those sports, under "Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". For example, Michael Jordan is not on the list, because his baseball career is not notable enough to qualify him for an article on its own. Similarly, Dan Marino should not be listed but is, even though he was only drafted and never played professional baseball. However, someone like Bob Hayes would qualify for being both a pro football player and an Olympic medalist. I do not want to diminish the accomplishments of these athletes, but when I turn to this article, I am looking for people more like Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, or Danny Ainge. I am tempted to be bold and cut many listings out, but this would be too significant an action to take unilaterally. My comments on the article's talk page go unnoticed, while more and more names are added to the page. Thank you.    → Michael J    08:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The sports listed on NPSPORTS are no more notable than any other sport, they are just ones that people wrote individual notability guidelines on as opposed to using the generic ones. -DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. The same general point plagues List of nationality transfers in sport. Play at what level within, or what level representing, both nations? (Evidently the current scope is between-nation within-sport, for it is organized in sublists by sport and there are no Other listings who changed or exercised dual nationality across sports.)
  2. List of all-rounders in games of skill was deleted November 2014. It may be worthwhile to read the official discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of all-rounders in games of skill. Only two biographies retain the redlink now, both champion players: Mads Andersen (backgammon and poker); Irina Levitina (chess and bridge--with nationality transfer across sports). Some of the people contributed to analysis of or instruction in multiple games of skill; see eg John R. Crawford and Oswald Jacoby#Publications.
--P64 (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

"Regular season" game results

Is there any policy or guideline on this one? For the most part, articles don't list every game result for domestic leagues, except for a summary table. This includes "regular season" game results, as playoff results and competitions above the national level are almost always listed individually. There are some exceptions: domestic rugby union results, cup competitions, US NCAA basketball and football, and Australian leagues. Should these be under WP:NOT#STATS? –HTD 14:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the nature of the exceptions? Concerning one of the most storied US collegiate basketball programs, I find that Template:North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball navbox shows bluelinks for about 20 of about 100 men's basketball seasons. Even those do not uniformly list all of the games. 2009–10 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team may cover every one in prose and evidently covers every one in its table, Schedule table. Does it seem that such dense coverage is becoming the rule? Is it such specialized coverage that you hope WP:NOT will address? --P64 (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Are Sports associations the same as Sports trade associations?

Are Sports associations the same as Sports trade associations? If yes then shouldn't Category:Sports associations be a member of Category:Trade associations? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A sports association is usually a league or a regulating body. Where as a sports trade association would be a lobbyist group that lobbies on behalf of something sport related. So no, they aren't really the same thing at all. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
To add to the confusion, a player's union is actually usually just a trade association itself. Resolute 20:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, cat Trade associations now contains the subcat Category:Sports trade associations which contains one page. --P64 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Six team bracket

Is there a bracket template that would handle the below scenario (first round is over two legs and the remaining rounds single matches)? Hack (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Bracket of 2004 NSL finals

One of your project's articles has been featured

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Stadium, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Reliability of

Hello, can anyone tell me whether this website [3] is reliable or not as per WP:RS? Itz arka (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reporting on stadiums? They look accurate to the point of showing their research into local stadium information. This might be one guy's research but it looks methodical and they don't seem to have an agenda to give deceptive or opinionated information. They seem to be a sports news amalgamation site, meaning they know where to get information. They are picking up schedules from various sources and posting. News, they are also linking to other sources of the news. For some items, don't take the source directly from austadiums, take the source from where they link. There are twitter links, don't use those as a source. Trackinfo (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NCYC update

On the WikiProject Cycling there is a proposal for an update for the notable criterea (WP:NCYC). It is possible to vote/respond here. Sander.v.Ginkel (Je suis Charlie) 11:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Carbon fiber"

What does carbon fiber mean? We are discussing the primary topic at talk:carbon (fiber). As carbon fiber is a frequent sporting goods material, I thought I'd let you know. -- (talk) 05:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


The stylization of 'eSport' is under discussion, see talk:electronic sports -- (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


The usage and primary topic of Schtick is under discussion, see talk:Schtick (disc game) -- (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Athletics (British) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Athletics (British) to be moved to Sport of athletics. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Schtick (disc game) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Schtick (disc game) to be moved to Schtick. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Deletion discussions?

I've noticed a lot of projects seem to track deletion discussions related to the scope of their project, but I don't see a link on your project page for one for sports. At any rate, I wanted to notify the project of a Prod that I placed earlier today on Sports Beijing. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about MOS:IDENTITY at Village Pump

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification regarding the application or the guideline to articles outside the biography, in particular regarding transgendered persons in sports. Further opinions would be appreciated. Diego (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

Could anyone help determine if she passes notability guidelines already? Draft:Katie Kelly. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Commons:WikiProject Sports

Hi, folks! I've founded the Commons WikiProject Sports, to gather people around the world to develop free images, videos, audio and other media related to sports. Have fun! --NaBUru38 (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for mobile tables

In case anyone is interested, I have launched a proposal to change the style of the mobile tables to make them match the desktop skin's tables more in response to a number of readability issues that were reported within the F1 project in recent moths. In case anyone wants to weigh in their opinion for either side of the argument, you can do so here. Thanks, Tvx1 15:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Peer review - College Football Playoff

I'm wondering if anyone would be willing to undertake a peer review of the College Football Playoff article, to which I've contributed on-and-off for awhile now. It was recently rated C-class, and I was hoping somebody could give me some feedback. It seems like something the community might want to get to GA (or even FA) before this fall. I've never done this before, so I'm sort of unsure of the next steps for this. Thanks for any help! Woodshed (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


The usage and primary topic of Eurogame is under discussion, see talk:German-style board game -- (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Open Championship nominated for ITN

It's currently nominated for In the news, but more content is needed. I need your help on this. --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Medals for Russia and Soviet Union

Should Russia and the Soviet Union be counted as one in medal tables? Please give your thought at Talk:Bandy World Championship for men#Medals for Russia and Soviet Union! Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 10:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Category discussion about Sport disciplines

Please share your thoughts here. Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Category discussion about Events at the Southeast Asian Games

Could you please have a look at this discussion and this discussion? Thanks. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

2016 Women's Bandy World Championship nominated for speedy deletion

2016 Women's Bandy World Championship has been nominated for speedy deletion. Please give your thoughts at the talk page of the article. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 18:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Washington University Bears listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Washington University Bears to be moved to Washington Bears. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

2015 in sports

Could someone please fix 2015 in sports? Someone forgot how to use summary style and created the longest article in Wikipedia history. Kaldari (talk) 00:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Janae Marie Kroc listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Janae Marie Kroc to be moved to Kroc. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

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

"Rest of the world"

The usage and topic of Rest of the world is under discussion, see talk:Rest of the world -- (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Rest of the world listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rest of the world to be moved to Rest of the world in sports and games. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

History section

A question has been raised at Talk:Bandy#History whether the history section for the sport should be moved within the article. It seems to be common to have the history section for a sport close to the top of the article about the sport (e.g. in the articles about association football, ice hockey, and field hockey). Is it commendable to follow this practice in all sports articles? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 11:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fox Sports 1 listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fox Sports 1 to be moved to FS1. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:45, 4 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.

"Hockey on the ice"

Hockey on ice is up for discussion, see the RfD. -- (talk) 04:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Jumping (horse) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jumping (horse) to be moved to Horse jumping. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:00, 10 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.

Proposal for Naming conventions (sports teams)

I've made a proposal to change the naming conventions for sports teams so that they fall in line more closely with general naming convertions. Participation would be appreciated at this page. --ArmstrongJulian (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Superlatives in sports

Category:Superlatives in sports, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Perfect scores by sport. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Sponsorships in sports

Shall Wikipedia write about sponsors (in general) and their importance for a sport? One user at talk:bandy seems to be very opposed to this idea, saying it goes against Wikipedia principles. Please share your opinion at that page! Skogsvandraren (talk) 12:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"their importance for a sport" is something Wikipedia should include in its coverage of a sport, of course. Not "sponsors (in general)" --eg, list all known sponsors simply because we have the facts with sources. --P64 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY revisited as it relates to historical names

A a Village Pump thread has opened (link) to determine how to guide editors when referring to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing (such as in articles and lists on historical sporting events). Please join the discussion. Blueboar (talk) 00:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople from Utrecht (city) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Category:Sportspeople from Utrecht (city) to be moved to Sportspeople from Utrecht (city). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

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

World team of the year

I noticed redirects world team of the year / world team of the year 1996 -- these lead to a magazine article. Shouldn't these be disambiguation pages? Should the yearless one point to Team of the Year ? -- (talk) 07:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps so, if there were any use in article space. But the redirect now used [4] only on multiple user pages (mainly User:AlexNewArtBot) and in discussion or notice of likely copyright violation (that the list of annual winners violates the magazine copyright?).
If the target page is appropriate, the specific target should be World Soccer (magazine)#World Team of the Year.
Evidently we have no page World Team of the Year. --P64 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Chin-up and Pull-up

The naming of Chin-up and the existence of Pull-up (exercise) is under discussion, see Talk:Chin-up -- (talk) 06:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Shipwreck Kelly (American football) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Shipwreck Kelly (American football) to be moved to John "Shipwreck" Kelly. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Invictus Games (multi-sport event) listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Invictus Games (multi-sport event) to be moved to Invictus Games. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Comeback (sports)

I have created a stub for Comeback (sports), and could use some help filling in details for specific sports. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Roller skates listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Roller skates to be moved to Roller skate. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Dick Pound Commission Report

Should the WADA Independent Commission chaired by Dick Pound and its report receive a separate article? [5][6][7] - (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It probably meets WP:GNG. Gap9551 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
FYI. We now cover this briefly at Dick Pound#World Anti-Doping Agency, second paragraph, and RUSADA#2015 WADA report with hatnote with hatnote in turn. Nothing at World Anti-Doping Agency if i scan correctly. --P64 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I just added it to the Pound article at the time I added this section here. I didn't add any detailed section to the Pound article, as it is the wrong place for details. -- (talk) 08:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
IAAF includes brief coverage of the August 2015 news or controversy or scandal, appended to the lead section with nothing below. --P64 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Russian athletics doping scandal seems like a poor name, there've been many different scandals. -- (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Fox Sports 1 listed at Requested moves


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fox Sports 1 to be moved to FS1 (U.S. TV channel). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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