Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] please help

I feel really stupid lol but how do i join ??cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Athletics vandalism

I just noticed a strangely fast 100m time on 1990 Commonwealth Games (Linford Christie apparently won the 100m in 9.37 seconds). Digging in the page history revealed a large amount of athletics time/score vandalism by this user, almost all of it uncorrected. I haven't the time to fix it up, but hopefully this will catch someone's attention who has more time. Orpheus 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rogaining

The rogaining article could use some editorial attention. --Una Smith 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New broad Category:Sports event promotion companies

Noticed a gap in the category space and filled it. Category needs populating. Right now has only one general entry (co. that promotes/organizes about 10 different sports events), and one subcategory (for cue sports). There are probably dozens of articles, at least, that could be categorized in here. It is for commercial entities that are organizing/hosting/promoting events such as tournaments, tours, championships, televised challenge matches, etc. on a for-profit basis, not for leagues in general (though some leagues like the NFL and International Pool Tour qualify, because they serve both roles), nor for governing bodies/rules issuers/sanctioning organizations (usually nonprofits, though again a multifaceted entity like the NBA might qualify, unless they get their rules from some umbrella organization). Kind of a judgement call. In pool, for example, the BCA is in Category:Cue sports organizations (as a sanctioning body/rules issuer/governing body), and Category:Cue sports leagues (because they also run an amateur competitive league), but not in this new category, since they do not serve this role; meanwhile IPT is in all three, because they are a sports entertainment enterprise first and foremost (Category:Cue sports event promotion companies), who run their own exclusive pro-am league (Category:Cue sports leagues), and, by rejecting the BCA/WPA World Standardized Rules and issuing their own (a combination of BCA-ish rules and "bar pool"), are acting as their own totally independent governing/sanctioning body (Category:Cue sports organizations). Hope that's not too complicated for anyone, and I'm sure it is much simpler to figure out in more "monolithic" sports like Major League Baseball, NHL hockey, FIFA football (soccer) and American college football, for examples. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:<participants> by nationality

I notice that many sports have a "<participants> by nationality" category (e.g. Category:Cricketers by nationality, Category:Cyclists by nationality, etc), which fit neatly as subcategories of Category:Sportspeople by nationality. However a lot of other sports, which do have their particpants categorised by nationality don't have a "by nationality" category, e.g. Backgammon has Category:American backgammon players, Category:Canadian backgammon players, etc, but no Category:Backgammon players by nationality. Do you think there would be any objections if I created the missing "by nationality" categories? And/or do you think I would need to consult the relevant individual WikiProjects first? DH85868993 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, just do it, or the categoryspace will have gaps. Good catch. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Sportspeople by sport

What's the intention of Category:Sportspeople by sport - is it only intended to include categories for "competitors" (e.g. Category:Badminton players, Category:Boxers, Category:Cyclists, etc), or is it also intended to include categories for administrators, coaches, etc? Currently there's some inconsistency, e.g. Category:Golf administrators is included, but Category:American football coaches is not. DH85868993 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"sportsperson" usually means "athlete", so I personally don't think coaches and stuff should be in there at all. But I think this is the first time the question has been raised, and it really begs a bigger one: Where do such people go? I have done a little lately, and we now have both Category:Sports agents and Category:Sports management companies (one existed already, but the other didn't, leaving all the agencies just filed under Category:Sports business. Anyway, I think what we need to do is identify all of the sorts of people and multi-person entities that we can, and then start lumping them together here until we arrive at a sane Category:Sports-on-down classification scheme, and with reference to other fields' categories (e.g. do other topics use "businesses" or "comapanies", "administrators" or "managers", etc.), because all of the categories we might come up with like Category:Sports agents will also need to be classified under non-sports categories (is there a Category:Agents?) I.e. you have opened a big can of worms. >;-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Nomination Backlog

There's quite a long backlog currently at the Good Article nomination page, and I thought some of you might be able to help out. There's a pretty long list of sports-related articles seeking GA review, so if someone that's familiar with the area could help out and review an article or two, that would be appreciated!

Also, if you're not as familiar with the GA process, it might help to review the Good Article criteria. If you're not too sure if the article meets all the criteria, but probably meets some of them, you can do a partial review, and then request a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer as well.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Is there any way a group of ppl would develop a template to put on all sports articles (similar to WP:Countries)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation query

Hi, folks. I recently discovered that we have articles on two athletes named Tom Wilkinson. One, currently at Tom Wilkinson (football player), is an American athlete who played in the Canadian Football League. The other, Tom Wilkinson (footballer), is an English football (soccer) player. (The undisambiguated Tom Wilkinson is used for the actor, who's far better known and has many more links than either athlete.) My question is this: do the parenthetical disambiguations (football player) and (footballer) adequately distinguish between the sports played by the two athletes named Tom Wilkinson? I know that the term "footballer" is used solely of football (soccer) players, but I think that the term "football player" is used for both players of soccer and players of (American) football. Have you folks had a conversation about this possible conflict of terms? Is there a better way to distinguish the two, or do we just assume that hatnotes pointing potential readers back and forth will take care of any possible confusion? I leave the matter in your hands. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert review: Tortured plywood kayak design

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Tortured plywood kayak design is notable enough for an own article. I originally posted to the talk page of WikiProject Kayaking, but the project does not seem to be active. Is there somebody here who could have a look at the article? For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on use of logos

Please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Logo inclusion in football club season infoboxes and contribute to the discussion, if you wish. Best, Johntex\^talk 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Top-X" and "legends" articles

I'd like to hold a consensus discussion about the creation of "Top-X" articles and their even more subjective ilk. I am a member of WP:SNOOKER and the broader WP:CUE so I naturally do not want to pick on snooker, pool or billiards topics, but I am most familiar with that segment of the sports articlespace, so I will use two examples from there, and advance my position on the matter:

I'm having trouble finding any comparable articles. There seem to be no Top-10 Formula 1 drivers, Baseball greats, Legendary ice hockey players or Top-earning American football players type of articles, for any sport or activity. This strongly suggests to me that such articles (and any categories that would attempt to fill the same purpose) are non-encyclopedic, for the reasons given next.

The problem with "top-X" articles is principally that the criterion is arbitrary and usually subjective. Even where it is not subjective – "the Top 16" (and "Top 8", "Top 32", etc.) are actual terms of art in professional snooker, as are hyphenated adjective forms, as in "he is a Top-8 player") – it is still not defining, in the terms used by WP:OVERCAT. "Almost a champion" is not an encyclopedically defining characteristic. It is notable that we do have Category:Academy Award winners while Category:Academy Award nominees and all of its subcategory were Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12#Category:Academy Awards deleted at CfD (and the recreations of two of them are currently being speedied per G4). The simplest rationale is, as someone said at CfD, that these are "loser categories". Sames goes for the "Top-X" category and list article ideas. Either you're the champion or you're not, and coming close may be a person source of satisfaction (more like disappointment in the case most sports pros' temperaments), but that is of not encyclopedic concern.

The problem with ill-defined lists of "greats" is even more obvious: They are totally subjective as to their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and thus a violation WP:NPOV and usually WP:NOR as well. In non-sporting contexts I've seen many similarly opinional pieces get deleted at WP:AFD, and that I can't find any other sports examples than this one suggests that plenty of sports ones have gone that route as well. The article in question here has other problems, such as redundant detail with the individuals' article subjects, but that's not particularly important to this discussion.

So, I await feedback, pro or con, on this. Maybe there are valid reasons for one or both articles of this sort that I'm just not seeing. I'd rather has this out here than go to AfD about it, since there may be sports concerns that are not immediately obvious to the average AfD participant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

[edit] Scrambles in the Canadian Rockies: Adspam?

Scrambles in the Canadian Rockies is currently a stub, possibly adspam. Should this article be saved or go to Afd? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a prime AfD candidate to me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate categories?

What is the distinction between Category:Sports scandals and Category:Sports controversies? Should they be merged (noting that some articles appear in both categories). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the scandals one would necessarily have to be a subcategory of the controversies one (scandals are controversial by definition, while not all controversies are scandalous), and therefore no articles should be in both categories. The words aren't synonymous, so I don't see any grounds for a merge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proosed deletion: Nauset ball

Nauset ball (via WP:PROD on 2007-12-21)

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is table tennis considered part of this project?

Is it possible for someone to improve coverage of the International Table Tennis Federation sports? There are many table tennis stars, such as Ma Lin, Wang Nan, and Ko Lai Chak who are lightly covered at best. On Chinese TV (CCTV-4), I've seen a lot of coverage, but there does not seem to be much in a way on the wikipedia articles. Could this be a task force under one of the sports projects? Please let me know. Thanks. --Jjc104 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Bowling subproject?

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Bowling for a group to deal specifically with Bowling which has gotten five members, which is generally thought enough for a task force. Would this project be willing to take on such a subproject? John Carter (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ESPN magazine representative wishes to work with interested Wikipedans to expand article

(Cross-posted to several relavant wikiprojects)

A representative of ESPN magazine wishes to work with interested Wikipedians to expand the ESPN The Magazine article. If any Wikipedians are interested in this, please leave a note at Talk:ESPN_The_Magazine#ESPN_magazine. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Baby tossing

I've put the article Baby tossing up for deletion as an unverifiable hoax. It arguably should never have been categorized as a "sport", but it was so members of this project may wish to comment at the AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1991-92 in English football

1991-92 in English football could use some tidying up, it looks like anons have been adding incorrect information for a while now (I reverted a lot of it). Cbrown1023 talk 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question from RuWiki

Hello, everyone! Is notability rules for athletes in EnWiki really based on two simple sentences? In RuWiki we have 8 criterions for notability but we can't create article about non-High league footballer or NCAA basketball player. Now I do project of new rules and wonder to know when and how you have accepted your rules. Can you show me archives of voting? Sidik iz PTU (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kaatsu

I've started a tiny stub at Kaatsu, and tagged it as belonging to this project. Not sure if I'm meant to notify you of this, or what :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyboarding

Somehow I landed at Bodyboarding and, to this non-knowledgable reader, it looks a mess. A great deal of vandalism has been reverted, and a great deal has been missed. I particularly noticed all the references to someone named "Nick Fahy", and I wonder if he exists. Someone who knows the topic, or at least knows how sports articles should be written (and policed), ought to take a look at it. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schools DVD

Anyone feel up to commenting on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Sports? Thanks --BozMo talk 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is there even any point to adding information about a team's indvidual season?

I've learned something over the past few months. Deletionists run this site. They run it.

What I feel is that a college basketball team should have a page for each season, as long as someone is willing to contribute that effort. I notice that someone is doing this for the Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. It's a valiant effort, and it is certainly useful.

However, all it takes is one deletionist, an afd, and a few friends, and it's grinded to dust. Is there ANY consenus whatsoever on if we're allowed to even do this? I see conference tournament pages, and sometimes even THOSE get nominated for deletion (An Atlantic 10 one barely survived AFD from a lazy deletionist).

Hey, I'd love nothing more than to write a lot of Missouri Valley Conference articles. I just have ZERO CONFIDENCE the articles would remain after two years. Has there been any discussion, and WILL any of that discussion hold up against deletionists? 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article nomination backlog

There's still a significant backlog of sports articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the sports and recreation list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parkour article dispute

The article Parkour (which is part of this project) is currently undergoing mediation by WP:MEDCAB due to a dispute over whether a criticism section should be included in this article, whether criticism should be merged into the text of the article, and if so how much. Your input at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour and Talk:Parkour#Safety and response to criticism section would be appreciated.--S.dedalus (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Sports is to try to find time to review History of the Ottawa Senators (1992-) and WrestleMania X. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur sports in Westmount, Quebec

Westmount, Quebec is an historic community in Montreal. I just removed some content about flag football and Atom and Bantam, that's 9-10 and 13-14 years of age, minor hockey. Now an anon IP has added content on a 7-17 years of age swim program. Before I remove this and feel like an ogre, is there a guideline on amateur/minor sports in articles? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of articles in scope

According to your latest article count, you have 941 articles tagged for your project. Yet WP:WikiProject Football alone has 27,000 articles. So should all 27,000 of these be tagged for WikiProject Sports also, or are there particular criteria that should be met? It just seems a strange mismatch to be - I'm guessing that this is purely due to the Sports project having fewer members than the football one. --Jameboy (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a guideline for assessing article to this WikiProject, would be a waste of time if all football articles and others were assessed on this too. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 15:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of team colors in templates

I normally don't worry about the common use of team colors in sports-related templates, but I just came across a case that perhaps highlights a broader problem; a bunch of templates using bright red text on a green background. My first reaction was simply "eww, that hurts my eyes" - I have a hard time focusing enough to actually read the words. But then it struck me that this combination is also problematic for those with red/green colorblindness. I ran the page through an online filter that illustrates the effect:

As you can see, the text becomes almost illegible for an entirely different reason; they're almost the same luminescence.

Is there some sort of guideline somewhere on the use of team colors in templates? There are general guidelines on the use of colors (Wikipedia:Colours) that advise against this sort of thing, but I figured if the problem is really widespread I should bring it up here. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:COLOURS is the guidelines that determine what is and is not appropriate for color schemes. In this case, these templates (not all of them, but clearly many of them) are a violation and should be changed, for everyone's sake. My recommendation, if you still want to involve the colors somehow, is to do it like the university infoboxes. See University of Alaska Southeast for an example. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Template

Hey there, WP:Sports. I've put together a template for stadiums that have moved out of the "purposed" phase and have had physical construction started.

Template:Stadium_under_construction

Use it as necessary! Thanks! -- Me^Holla! 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] InterProject Collaboration

Hey there! As you may or may not know. An Afd has been brought up to discuss the notability of Ohio High School Athletic Conferences. It was proposed that WikiProject Ohio lead an effort to get these articles up to par. We are asking for help fromWikipedia:WikiProject Schools as well to help us get these articles uniform. An effort headed by JonRidinger and Frank12 is in place to jump start this process. Any help your project could lend would be greatly appreciated. As a main point for the effort we have the talk page which is located at Wikipedia:OH/HS Football Conferences. Thank you for your time! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability discussion invitation

The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project is having a discussion of college football player notability in reference to professional football leagues. All members of your project are invited to join in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Players notability expansion?.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taekwondo

The Taekwondo article is having a content dispute (running for over 6 months now) and I wondered if anyone from here might be interested in helping to calm things down and help clean up the article as it has been hacked rather badly with reverts and attempts to merge opposing versions. The main debate is on the origins of the art, the talk page gives a good introduction to the views held by the editors, any help would be most appreciated. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories for mergers

A heads-up that anyone may be interested in biographies of sportspeople: There is a conversation focused on merging Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska and Category:Omaha sportspeople to Category:Nebraska sportspeople located here. • Freechild'sup? 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist    10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pickup/public/informal games

I noticed wikipedia has no article on public/informal/pickup games. Is there a reason for this, or shall I begin an article? Hotshot977 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA sweeps of sports people

Just dropping a note to anyone with a sports person related Good article that passed GAN before last August. These articles have now (finally) come up for GA Sweeps and over the next few weeks I will be assessing them against the Good article criteria. Please make sure that any GAs you maintain or may have taken to this stage conform to the current criteria. They will need a high standard of referencing, compliance with MOS where possible, a good standard of prose and properly tagged images. I am especially looking out for articles on living people that have not been maintained in the last year and may have libellous or simply messy statements inserted without referencing or format. Formal reviews will begin soon, to see a list of articles coming under review and their current status based on my quick "instareview" see this list. Please direct any questions to my talk page as it is possible I will miss them if posted here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-BCS college football bowl games

Do pages like 2006 Champs Sports Bowl and 2006 Armed Forces Bowl for example need their own pages? Why aren't these low profile bowl games all merged into one article. Lets say the 2006 Bowl Season. Then one for 2007. On this central list there can be links to main articles for the big BCS bowls. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia being a group effort, no one has replied to this user's concern. I agree. Merge all the non-important bowl games. -- UWMSports (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! We didn't reply here because it is covered under Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. Most college football editors check there first, and here a lot less for obvious reasons. Anyway, all bowl games (past and present) are considered notable per CFB:GAMES. And even if we didn't have the guideline on the essay, there still is more than enough independent reliable sources about the two bowl games in question to more than warrant an article for each.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1315 articles are assigned to this project, of which 204, or 15.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Project 119

Project 119 is currently a redirect to China at 2008 Games article, I think this should be turned into a real article, since the project affects sporting competitions both before and after the Beijing Games, and has a significant impact on international sport. A Canadian program of similar intent has an article: Own the Podium. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about ignoring of naming conventions raised at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt"

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt". Numerous WP:SPORTS child-projects are pretending that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guidelines don't exist. Needs to be resolved one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Guideline: NOTED PLAYER

After protracted disputes at soccer articles about what constitutes a noted player for team X and how to verify that, I have drafted a proposal about noted players, but I've tried to make it general to all sports, as the issue has sort of spilled onto other sports articles. Apologies that this notification is a little late, but it completely slipped my mind to post here, although I had spammed the village pump and wp:note, with so far surprisingly very little interest. See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER and give opinions, or not. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. what links here gives an idea of the sports currently affected, as the proposal is linked from a template drawn up for tagging team articles percieved to have this flaw. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, I was just now looking over WP:CUENOT (which I haven't worked on much in a while) and thinking to myself, "y'know, 95% of this could be generalized to all sports"... I think we should combine forces on this. NB: There is no huge hurry - the sports side of things has been without a notability guideline for a long time, and the sky has not fallen down. We do need one, but having already taken a wild idea from a page full of rants to a well-accepted guideline (WP:MOSFLAG), I do have a fairly solid grasp of the process involved. Probably 95% of things that get proposed as guidelines are rejected by the community, but I think we can do this since I know how to do it properly. For the short term, I would advocate working on what you have going, sleep on it a lot and return to it and keep fleshing it out - with a great deal of respect for WP:N and other aspects of WP policies and broader guidelines - and between us we can probably come up with a valid subject-specific notability guideline that will be well-accepted at WP:AFD, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been struggling with this at CFB:PLAYER for college football players. It's pretty easy to tell if a player is notable after completion of four years of play, but what makes a player notable during those four years of play? There's some points in the essay noted above that I think would lead to a large number of college football players (such as being a team statistical leader) that may not really be ready for notability on Wikipedia. Great job in putting it together!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the hockey project we decided since technically all players are notable that are on wikipedia that you can't just say one player on a team is more notab