Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

Latest comment: 8 hours ago by GoodDay in topic 1995 CFL team map
WikiProject iconSports Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Implementation of consensus infobox changes for current seasons edit

At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_172#Designating_current_seasons_in_infoboxes, I read clear consensus to use text rather than images to designate the current season. I went ahead and made the change at {{Infobox award}}, but since I'm not a sports person, I'll leave the implementation for sports templates such as {{Infobox football league}} to you all here. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've added a DNAU tag to this thread; feel free to remove it once you have finished implementation. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Redlinked categories edit

The latest run of Special:WantedCategories contains four red links for "[Decade] in youth football", and nine redlinks for "[Decade] in women's strength athletics", all of which are being autogenerated by the use of either {{YYY0s in youth association football category header}} on "[Decade] in youth association football" categories, or {{YYY0s in women's weightlifting category header}} on "[Decade] in women's weightlifting" categories. This is a new problem that emerged for the first time on today's redlinked category report, coming from categories that have existed since 2020 without causing this before, so they relate to something that was done to an existing template or module within the past couple of days.

The problem categories are:

Since redlinked categories aren't allowed to be left sitting on pages, however, these need to be either created or eliminated as quickly as possible. So my question is, are these categories wanted, or do they represent a mistake that needs to be repaired? If they're desired, then could somebody from this project create them right away, and if they're a mistake, then could somebody from this project find and fix it so that the redlinks go away? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:United States Football League (2022)#Requested move 11 February 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Football League (2022)#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is one a disambiguation page, while the other is a re-direct? edit

Why is Western Conference Finals a disambiguation page & Eastern Conference Finals a re-direct? Should they both be the same? GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks like this was fixed yesterday by Primefac, so they both redirect to Conference Finals DAB page now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, yeah, sorry, I must have closed this tab before I implemented the edit. Redirs for both made sense, so figured I'd be bold and just do it. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:National Basketball Association#Requested move 28 February 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Basketball Association#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 06:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Australian rules football edit

Australian rules football has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Wellie wanging#Requested move 3 March 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wellie wanging#Requested move 3 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Stats only" sports articles on non-SNG topics edit

I've been pretty active at New Page Patrol lately. (#3 in total reviews for last 90 days) There's one type of situation which I see come up very frequently. This a "stats only" sports article at a lower or more specific level than where the SNG gives "season" type articles presumed notability. For example, on one of those non-SNG cases "The 2023 season of the XYZ team" "the ABC tournament in the XYZ league". Inevitably these are 1-2 intro sentences and after that it's "stats only" and sources only for the stats. Of course, no GNG references which IMO are unlikely to exist or get added. Some folks will say "coverage probably exists" but it's really not GNG scope about the topic but instead about an individual game or player. So these end up as permanent "stats-only" articles. I've been skipping reviewing most of these, and maybe others have also because there seems to be a lot of them in the 15,000+ article backlog at NPP. There are a lot of folks spending lots of time creating "stats only" sports article of the type described and so this (IMHO) conflict with wp:notability and somewhat wp:not is sort of sad regarding the work that people are doing. Is there any agreement amongst sports article folks to not be creating these "stats-only articles? Is so, I was thinking mostly of giving guidance to folks who are creating them to redirect their efforts to articles with more substantial text/prose type content developed from sources with broader coverage. It would also be nice if there was some agreement on these rather than viewing it as 2 "sides". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

With respect, the quality of an article has little to do with whether or not it is notable. SNG has little to do with it. Do you have some specific examples of articles that you are talking about? I've certainly taken articles that are just a draw template and written articles around them. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The SNG has sections for seasons and events and roughly speaking says that the top tier ones are presumed notable and that the others aren't presumed notable. So it is relevant to this conversation. Also I know that article quality does not affect wp:notability, so maybe I wasn't clear on that. To condense and more directly frame it under wp:notability. These are topics that have nothing establishing wp:notability under the GNG or GNG. The "stats only" aspect is a reflection of not having GNG sources. I'm hesitant to do it to an editor to have their article show up here for this but it would be useful so maybe if I provide several examples they would be just one in a crowd and fine. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Just to be specific, are we talking about things like WP:SEASONS? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's a footy task force page. The general sports guideline is WP:NSEASONS. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
How are the stats typically sourced? Stats sites wouldn't establish notability per WP:SPORTSBASIC:

Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability

Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the general case, not sports-specific, how does NPP handle pages that likely meet WP:NEXIST but major cleanup or development is needed (WP:NOTCLEANUP). Is draftifying a viable option? —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm an active NPP'er but I can only speak for myself. Of course everybody will claim "sources probably exist" for their article without dealing with the question of them being GNG sources and being about the (overall) topic of the article. I'm an advocate for it being the job of the millions of editors to search for sources for their articles, rather than the 20 NPP'ers who do 90% of the reviews trying to handle the 15,000 article backlog. But such is not the case right now. Also, I deal with the part of the NPP cue which is over 90 days old where draftifying is not an option. But to answer your question directly, if I see a terribly written article that needs an immense amount of work (except no copyvios) but where I'm confident the GNG sources about the (overall) topic of the article exist, I will mark it as reviewed and leave it in mainspace even if I had the option to draftify it. And I'd leave specific recommendations / note specific problems during the review.
BTW, for articles of the type I brought up in this post, I believe that such sources do not exist, and those articles never have such sources. Technically those are all AFD material but I tend to "pass the buck" and usually don't review those. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
If WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything, it seems that WP:PROD or AfD is the route to go. If someone is regularly creating articles that get deleted, a discussion on their talk page is in order. In the worst case, there's WP:TBANs. —Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
These aren't bad actors, there are just a lot of people creating a lot of stats only articles. I guess what I was hoping for was some recommendation from the project against creating stats-only articles. North8000 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
These aren't bad actors...: Definitely AGF, but until someone approaches them on their talk page or nominates non-notable pages for deletion, they might not even know there is a problem. Project recommendations could be created, but honestly those are often for regulars, as there's a lot of editors that are probably not aware (and some that don't care) what a WikiProject recommends. At least on the sports projects I'm involved in, nobody is advocating mass stats-only page creation. However, there'd be less of an issue if the page itself is an WP:NEXISTS topic. So, I'd tackle it as a notability issue, with a page with only stats being a possible symptom. —Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Without any examples I'm struggling to know what we are actually advocating against. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

New Article for an NCAA Division II Basketball Arena edit

This is a list of all the basketball arenas for NCAA Division II arenas. Which arena would you like to see a Wikipedia page for that doesn't already have one? I've personally constructed two: Halenbeck Hall and O'Reilly Family Event Center, as well as the Arlin R. Horton Sports Center, an NCCAA Division II arena. Wjenkins96 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Major League Baseball season pages edit

Would appreciate more input concerning Major League Baseball season pages, as many changes are being proposed & implemented. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merger discussion edit

Merger discussion here. A proposed merger of Pata (esports) and Porin Ässät. – Poriman55 - Meddela mig! 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Portland Men's Roller Derby nominated at AfD edit

See/participate in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Men's Roller Derby. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1995 CFL team map edit

Anybody know how to fix up the Template:CFL team map 1995, for the moment I've hidden it from the 1995 CFL season page. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also the Template:CFL location map 2014+ is problematic. The Eskimos didn't change their name to Elks until the 2021 season, after one year without a moniker. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Reply