Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Sports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of sport-related topics on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Implementation of consensus infobox changes for current seasonsEdit

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)

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)

"Equestrian" at the Summary OlympicsEdit

Would anybody object if I did a quick run through the above series of templates and pages to do a fair few pages moves? [Adjective] at the Summer Olympics is just bad English... See also the CfD for the categories. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you give an example of such a page move? Primefac (talk) 11:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I see the OP has moved Equestrian at the Summer Olympics to Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics without discussion (which is rarely a sensible thing to do), and I assume they want to do the same for all the other pages like Equestrian at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel like it would make more sense to call it "Equestrian events at..."; colloquially (and somewhat anecdotally) I don't think I've ever heard it called anything other than "equestrian". Primefac (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
These would not be uncontroversial moves so discussion is needed. There are far better options than your proposal, e.g. "Equestrian sports at...". The issue also goes beyond the Olympics, to include most (if not all) other "equestrian at multi-sport event" articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
FYI, an RM has been started at Talk:Equestrian at the Summer Olympics. Please feel free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
The RM has been procedurally closed; the Rfc below replaces it. Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC: "Equestrian" article titles and categories: bulk move requestEdit

What should the naming scheme for equestrian events[a] be altered to? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Current optionsEdit

As discussed in the main section and other locations, there are four primary naming options proposed:

  1. "Equestrian at..." (i.e. status quo)
  2. "Equestrian events at..."
  3. "Equestrian sports at..."
  4. "Equestrianism at..."


  • Oppose "Equestrianism" as this does not appear to used in reliable sources at all. Support either "Equestrian" (i.e. no change) or "Equestrian events" (which seem to be about equally used) or "Equestrian sports" which is used but less commonly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    • For clarity, "Equestrian at..." (no change) is my first preference, following by "Equestrian events at..." in second and "Equestrian sports" in third place. I oppose "Equestrianism at". Thryduulf (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for Equestrian... per WP:OFFICIALNAME (Olympic website) and about equal usage with "Equestrian events" per WP:COMMONNAME (G-News hits). Weak Support for Equestrian events... as it is used and is technically better grammar (though I'm not sure anyone is actually getting confused). Oppose Equestrianism as it seems to be rarely used in reference to the sport itself (G-News) and not used officially anywhere. Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) – I came into this with the presumption that I would want it moved to something, based on the same grammar objections listed in the #Discussion, as this usage of the term looks awkward to me, but maybe that's just because I'm not a fan of, er, um, [grits teeth] "equestrian". My personal preference is for equestrian events, and some preliminary searches turn up a slight preference for that, but it appears to be within the margin of error. I'm willing to change my WP:!vote if a convincing argument is put forth for one of the alternatives based on the data, but given the rough equivalence of the alternatives, I don't see sufficient evidence for doing so now, so I vote for no move. Mathglot (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian events at or equestrian sports at, for clarity. Some mostly insider sources sometimes use equestrian as a noun, for shorthand to other insiders, but it would be yet another WP:Specialized-style fallacy to impose that on the encyclopedia.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  00:28, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Support for Equestrian events at... or Equestrian sports at.... (to match with Category:Equestrian sports competitions), with preference for the second option (to match the categories and also since these are indeed "sports" so "events" seems a bit vague) - as I originally said, the current format is just bad English. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Either Equestrian at or Equestrian Sports/events at... Not sure there is anything wrong with the current wording, but I don't like to proposed Equestrianarism Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Lee Vilenski: What is wrong with "Equestrian at the Summer Olympics" is the same thing that would be wrong with "Exceptional at the Summer Olympics" (i.e. you can't have an adjective without a noun which it modifies - so while you could have, to continue the example, "Exceptional weather events at the Summer Olympics", the other option is obviously bad English). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    The problem with that argument is that "equestrian" is a noun (as well as an adjective). When it used as a noun, as in "equestrian at the Olympics" it is perfectly grammatical. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Equestrian can be a noun in some specific meanings ("a rider or performer on horseback"), but that's clearly not the meaning which is employed here (otherwise it would be talking about the people who competed in equestrian events/sports, and it would still be an error as it should be plural, i.e. "Equestrians at the [x]"). This is surely not the only example of a word that can be both a noun or an adjective (the other that immediately comes to mind is "fair" - with radically unrelated meanings; or "pale" and "The Pale". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what your point is, because usage in reliable sources clearly shows that the sport is often known as "Equestrian". Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Thryduulf: Which sources? Please do show. Additionally, I'll note that the top category is Category:Equestrian sports (i.e. not "Equestrian") and that the main article of that category, although broader than sports, is Equestrianism (not "Equestrian"). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    From the first page of a google search for "Equestrian at the" -Wikipedia: Radio Times, IOC, Equestrian Australia, NBC, The Guardian, ESPN. I stopped looking at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    And advancing to the last page of results shows that there are about 120 results for that query, but due to the query wording, there are false positives such as "And who's the one general who competed as an equestrian at the Olympics?", "Equestrian at the Box", "A 411 on all things equestrian at the Pan Am Games.", "She has also represented Intermont Equestrian at the Zone 4 Championships", etc. Comparing with the last page of "Equestrian events at the -wikipedia" shows 137 results with fewer or no false positives, so there appears to be a slight preference for the latter, but I haven't compared the reliability of the sources in each result set. Mathglot (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Absolute no for "Equestrianism." I've never heard that term used when I've been around Dressage and 3-day Eventing. Best to leave it as is or at worst use "Equestrian events." Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Preference for Equestrian sports at... or Equestrian events at..., but no change also seems fine. Oppose "Equestrianism at...", for obvious reasons. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian sports per base category, as well as the fact that the definition of "equestrian" as a noun refers to tbe rider and not the sport according to Merriam Webster, Cambridge, Collins, These are the first hits I get on Google, not intentionally selected to say what I want. Animal lover 666 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian events or equestrian sports seem best options to me. Equestrianism isn't used in any sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian at, because that seems to be the most common way to put it, and is more concise than "equestrian events/sports" which resembles hypercorrection, i.e. an attempt to "rectify" the adjective-as-a-noun back to the adjective (possibly, just a thought). However, I can support even the latter. I strongly oppose only "equestrianism". twsabin 21:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Equestrian at, per several above, but weak support #2 and weak oppose #3 - I state this only in case #1 ends up ruled out, to say they are my preferences to #4, which I firm oppose (i.e. don't really take this as a support for #2). But I will explain my lack of preference for #3, it is simple and obvious: "equestrian" is the sport, the different aspects of it are events. It would be like calling the different aspects of the cycling "sports" or the different aspects of athletics "sports" (when we have already chosen to make it clear that "athletics" is the sport.) Kingsif (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Kingsif makes a good point. If we are OK with "Athletics at..." (a nouned adjective via usage), then why would be opposed to "equestrian"? Yosemiter (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Can I also offer weak support for another option, Riding at, based on the standard at the Modern pentathlon article, where the former cross-country equestrian event and the current show-jumping equestrian event are both listed under "Riding". Kingsif (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Except that "swimming", "athletic", etc... are actually nouns according to existing sources [and Wikipedia is supposed to follow such usage] (Good dictionaries - [1][2][3] - all have something like "Swimming - the act, art, or sport of one that swims"); whereas equestrian in this context cannot be a noun unless one decides to treat it as some form of neologism ([4][5][6] - all basically give a single noun meaning which can be summarised as "a rider on horseback" - nothing to the with the sports, although you need an equestrian to ride an equine if you want to take part in equestrian sports), since it clearly is not referring to that. Other works of an encyclopedic nature, ex. [7]; use "Equestrian sports". Even specialist sources like US Equestrian Federation use "Equestrian sports" when referring to the topic in running text. It makes little sense to impose a form which is grammatically wrong. "Equestrian" in this context is an adjective ("of, relating to, or featuring horseback riding"), and adjectives without a noun to modify are lonely, to say the least. You can't have "Great in Rome", although you can have "Great historical monuments in Rome". Similarly one shouldn't have "Equestrian at the Olympics"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 06:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • You, and I assume whomever else complains, is treating this like we (Wikipedia) are/get to come up with/decide the name of the sport as we use it. But we do not. We have a standard format and put the name of the sport, as decided by the appropriate sporting authorities, in that format. The Olympics just call it "Equestrian" ([8], [9]), or "Riding" in the context of Modern pentathlon. Just because the proper noun isn't also a common noun in this case, doesn't matter in the slightest. Kingsif (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
        • It isn't a neologism. There are registers. "Equestrian" used like this is tied to a certain register, that of sports, and one could say a subset of sports, perhaps we could see this as the "Olympics register". Not everyone is interested in this topic and won't know it's terminology like not everyone is interested in car repair. Hearing a word from a register you're not accustomed to, does not make that word a neologism. twsabin 11:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • First choice is no change to current system, second choice is "Equestrian events at"... Reliable sources seem to use either "Equestrian" as a noun or "Equestrian events" and we should follow suit. --Jayron32 16:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


  • There was a vote based on an WP:OFFICIALNAME exception, however I don't see one listed in the specific-topic naming conventions such as Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams), or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Olympics), so I don't think WP:OFFICIALNAME applies in this case. Or is there one I'm missing? Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Mathglot: I was referencing OFFICIALNAME secondary to COMMONNAME as there did not appear to be a distinct common usage between "equestrian" and "equestrian events" when independent media was covering the events themselves. In cases where there is no clear common name, other determinations may be used to form a consensus as stated in WP:COMMONNAME: When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Proposing using an OFFICIALNAME is a valid alternative as long as it is one of the common names. The Olympics calls the events as simply "Equestrian" as in their events recaps here and here (using statements like "equestrian competition", "successful equestrian Olympic campaign", "equestrian's top five moments"; the last clearly using equestrian as a noun). Yosemiter (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Yosemiter: (edit conflict) thanks for your comment. I ended up agreeing with your conclusion, although not quite with how you arrived at it; but this may be a distinction without a difference. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
  • User:RandomCanadian and User:Lee Vilenski: it was not entirely clear whether your unbolded comments at the top of this #Discussion section were intended as !votes or not—it kind of looks like they were. Because there were bolded comments in the Discussion section that clearly were votes, I subsequently created a #Survey section (as is usual in Rfc's that have separate Discussion sections) and moved those two votes there (and added my own). If your comments at the top of this section are your "WP:!votes", could you please repeat your vote in the #Survey section above? If they were just discussion comments, no action needs to be taken. This is so that the closer will be clear on what everyone's intention is here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    Fixed that for you. I don't like the strict separation (and sometimes even rigidity of thought) the two section format usually entails, but if it's bene forced on the discussion, might as well make sure it makes sense. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: because of the wording of the Rfc, I interpret some of the support and oppose votes as being in favor of the same outcome. Please take care when interpreting them. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
    We edit-conflicted (I think) but I added some options so that future !votes may be slightly more clear. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Note that I have added a #Current options section above the main survey, mainly to indicate the front-runners of the options and hopefully make it easier for uninvolved participants responding to the RFC to "get" what is being proposed. If other options become heavily favoured, please feel free to amend the list. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Kind-of as a response to what Yosemiter jumped off from my !vote, I think any change in the style would be wrong, just as a deviation from the naming standards. To wit, nobody would argue for "Swimming events at" over just "Swimming at", and, while it may be awkward, "Equestrian" is the sport... we should be naming the sport (e.g. "Swimming at"), not describing the method of the events it encompasses (e.g. a comparative "Swimming pool events at"), per the naming standards of all the other articles. While you could say that, okay, "Swimming events" means "events within the sport of Swimming", this RfC has suggested "Equestrian events" not as a kind of disambiguation (though what "Equestrian at [Sports Event]" would otherwise mean I don't know) but as a grammatical alternative, i.e. not "events within the sport of Equestrian", but "events that are undertaken on horseback". And that, I think, would perhaps create more confusion, if readers are going through all the sport articles (perhaps for their country), wondering why sentence-style has only been used for one sport. There's also an argument that, if choosing to describe, it would suggest the scope is broader, i.e. modern pentathlon is not an event in the sport of Equestrian, but it is an equestrian sport with an equestrian event. Kingsif (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes and refsEdit

  1. ^ This would include all pages with titles of the same form as Equestrian at the Summer Olympics, a scheme not limited to Olympics themselves; as well as the whole of the category tree, starting with Category:Equestrian at multi-sport events

Discussion at Talk:UT Arlington Mavericks § Proposed merge of University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy into UT Arlington MavericksEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UT Arlington Mavericks § Proposed merge of University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy into UT Arlington Mavericks. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 23:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

FIBA ArchiveEdit

Please tell me whether you see the same mess I do, on this website. It had been working fine until recently and now I see everything stuck on the left side there. The problem is, I edited dozens of basketball articles last year with those references from FIBA Archive. And now I don't know what to do with it. Maiō T. (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed That was a wrong website. The correct one is this ( instead of Now I have dozens of articles to edit with these new references. Maiō T. (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North AmericaEdit

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect multiple article titles. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Alpine Skiing World Cup race podiumsEdit

Mikaela Shiffrin
SportAlpine skiing
Medal record
World Cup race podiums
Event 1st 2nd 3rd
Slalom 47 11 8
Giant slalom 14 7 9
Super-G 4 1 3
Downhill 2 1 2
Combined 1 0 0
Parallel 5 1 1
Total 73 21 23

At the end of each ski world cup competition, the first three athletes are awarded. Ok, no medals are awarded, but the placements in the top three are considered podiums in careers. Ok the "medal count" template speaks of "medals" and in the World Cup medals are not awarded to the first three as in the Olympics or the World Cup, but the count of podiums in the world cup would be useful information, as it is in other Wikipedia like the German one. Do not tell me that the infobox already contains the information of podiums and victories, because it does not contain the details. So I ask what harm it would be to put this additional information in the infobox since it is almost never in the body of the athletes article? --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cologne Centurions (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 March 2022Edit

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cologne Centurions (disambiguation)#Requested move 3 March 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Logo size additions, changes & failure to communicateEdit

I'm a tad concerned with @BouwMaster: & his apparent refusal to communicate, concerning his logo size changes to sports team articles. Indeed, he seems to have a history of not communicating, period. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This sounds more like an issue for WP:ANI. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
It was just posted there a couple of weeks ago. There was no administrator action taken despite a lot of people being convinced there's some sort of socking shenanigans going on with other users (like Markuss86). Really needs to be an WP:SPI filing, I think. Frankly, between them (and I am assuming it is one person, because of the behavioral evidence) undoing their own edits repeatedly, the absolute lack of communication, and the obvious sock puppetry, I'm concerned that this is some sort of malicious actor using pointless edits to somehow legitimize internet skulduggery in ways I don't understand but am very wary of. oknazevad (talk) 21:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
He started it up again, today. Under another 'name'. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Would need to go back to ANI and/or SPI. Not communicating might be suitable for CIR, but not much we should do on a WikiProject. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Ranking changes in templateEdit

Hello everyone! I've recently started updating squash-related Top 10 world ranking templates, and was wondering if there's a standard way of showing ranking changes? The PSA World Tour rankings has this information (e.g. player X moved up 2 spots) so it's easy to find, but I'm not sure if there's some standard images or code to use for this? Tried searching the archives, but didn't find anything so I thought I'd ask here. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found several solutions described in the documentation for {{steady}}, which also links to further templates if one also needs to show a value next to the icon. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

MLB's postseason first roundEdit

I think it's time to have two articles. One called (now historic) Major League Baseball Wild Card Game & the other (currently a re-direct to the former) Major League Baseball Wild Card Series. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rfc on sports team's navboxesEdit

How should we deal with sports team navboxes? --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Added by Primefac (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) see note below

Starting this Rfc after a Tfd discussion last month on March 7, 2022, concerning navboxes for sports teams created for tournaments in their respective sport. The templates nominated were kept as there had been previous consensus to keep the men's Cricket World Cup men's team's navboxes from the August 21, 2018 Tfd. An issue that was raised by the nominator and the lone delete vote, plus my comment on the nomination, is that there is confusion on what templates should be kept and which one should be deleted. This should not be only of concern to the Cricket Project from both Tfd's mentioned, but to all sports projects on Wikipedia. Current squad, players on the active roster, navboxe are not of issue with this rfc.

I'd say there are three options on how to deal with the confusion/issue of all these squad templates. Do you support or oppose the following:

  1. The team/squad tournament navboxes that should be kept are the ones that win the tournament/championship. Since the winning team is more notable than a runner-up or the team that lost. For instance, winners of the World Series, SuperBowl, and the NBA Chamiponships only have naboxes for teams that won. Not for teams that didn't or qualified for a playoff spot or won a round in a playoff series. From what I could find on the MLS teams, they don't have a squad template for teams that win the MLS Cup. I'm of this opinion because if we have navboxes for every team that didn't win the championship, then it would fall under Creep and Cruft. Wikipedia still has issues with these two areas.
  2. The tournament squad navboxes that should be kept are the winning and runner-up teams.
  3. All tournament squad templates should be kept regardless.

If there are other options then they should be stated below.

Another issue is also the creation of such templates done by editors in good faith, but in my view, it clutters up Wikipedia just like the massive backlog of unused templates. Sports projects should consider adopting policy on creating navboxes related to their scope and decide which among the options above or ones suggested by others will be best suited for the respective project.

After posting this Rfc, I'll inform the various sports projects for their input.

Pining the following people who have been involved in such discussions, not just the two mentioned above, at Tfd's: Lugnuts, Joseph2302, Nigej, Wjemather, PeeJay, Spike 'em, Frietjes, Jonesey95, Gonnym, Pppery, Number 57, Izno, Plastikspork --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

WikiCleanerMan, I have added a one-line question-statement to your RFC at the top line - you are welcome to rephrase it as you like but RFC opening statements (that get copied over by the bot) need to be short. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. I just forgot about it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Can you rephrase it, so that a support/oppose response (or at least, a choice between a small number of options) means something? An rfc question of "How do we deal with X?" is great wrt brevity, but is too vague for an Rfc opener, and sounds a lot like the "Bad questions" listed in the right-floated box at WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Mathglot (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify that we're talking here about navboxes created for sports teams created for tournaments etc (which would include the Olympics etc). There are many "current squad" navboxes around but I think we ought to ignore these in the current discussion to keep it focused. As I noted in the discussion noted we have a situation like Mithali Raj#External links where you have to click three times even to open the navbox. Given that the supposed purpose of a WP:NAVBOX is to help the reader navigate between articles, it seems to me that many uses of this type of navbox are not actually designed to aid navigation but to be decorative award-type banners at the bottom of articles. As noted, these are created in good faith by editors who presumably think that this type of navbox is what Wikipedia is all about, having seen countless examples in other articles. The reality is that if a reader wants to know about the squads in the 2022 Women's Cricket World Cup they will go to that article and navigate from there, not using the navboxes (indeed I've been to a couple of the Men's World Cup finals (1979 and 1983) and that's exactly what I did to remind myself of those long-ago days). Personally I'd be happy to get rid of all of them, since hardly any actually aid navigation. However, what's most important is that we provide some sort of "rule" as to what is and what isn't suitable. Does Mithali Raj really need 18 tournament squad navboxes (plus a current squad)? How do these aid navigation? Nigej (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Can I just advocate for a complete deletion of navboxes for teams who did not win major tournaments? I'm not even a big fan of this, but if we start creating templates for teams who don't win (especially in games like football where people move between clubs during tournaments) is incredibly crufty. Surely we can handle this with categories better anyway? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as a TFD admin, the current precedent is to delete this type of navbox for all but the top 2-4 teams (outcome depends on the sport and the discussion). Very rarely do non-medal-winning team navboxes get kept. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Even for runner-up teams, it seems like a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Those get deleted as well sometimes. I'm not advocating either way, just reporting on discussions I've closed over the years. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Common_outcomes#Squad_navboxes for a not-at-all-comprehensive list of discussions. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Although when I proposed deleting some netball navboxes of this type (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Template:Northern Ireland squad at the 2019 Netball World Cup) it was branded as "Yet another example of an editor with nothing better to do." And netball is nothing like the worst sport in this area, in fact it's one of the better ones. Nigej (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
And we have situations like {{2021 United States Ryder Cup team}}/{{2021 European Ryder Cup team}} where it makes no sense to me to keep the winning team and delete the losing one. Keep both or delete both. Nigej (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
I'd be up for deleting both. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Ideally we should deal with this sport-by-sport, and the scope of the RFC is too wide, what kind of navboxes are we discussing, all of them? If it is a 'current roster' template for a club (NFL team, soccer team etc.) that gets updated when players leave or join, that is fine. However, if it is the '1991 X squad' for a club then delete - and we have done so for soccer at TFD for years, even for those that win major championships. If it is an international tournament (such as World Cup or Olympics) with a squad that would never change, then keep it. GiantSnowman 20:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Why exactly do we want a current club template? Don't the articles already have a table in them with this info? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Because you cannot easily navigate between players without one - you would need to go back to the main club article every time. GiantSnowman 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment Personally I feel that navboxes for teams that have competed in major tournaments (World Cups, Olympics etc) are ok. However when navboxes are created for team that have won a yearly domestic tournament for example, or created for each team in a yearly tournament I don't see fit. GiantSnowman makes a good point above on it being different for different sports, as in rugby union teams competing in a four-yearly world cup I think is fine with having a navbox, but a navbox for a yearly domestic tournament, or non-notable international tournaments aren't required. In some sports it'll be different though. A navbox for each Super Bowl winning team may well be of interest and use to the reader, but a 2021 Women's domestic cricket trophy winner may not be as necessary and of use. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Surely the question in not whether they "may well be of interest and use", but whether they actually aid navigation between articles, supposedly the sole purpose of a WP:NAVBOX. Nigej (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
    Personally I feel that my point still stands and navboxes for winning/running up sides, and teams from major tournaments and events aid navigation as a reader may be looking for articles on other people from those events, but yearly domestic or non-notable international ones don't, as they for certain individuals will lead to large number of navboxes, which clutter articles and don't aid navigation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
We're not discussing "current squads" but we are discussing navboxes like {{Afghanistan football squad 1948 Summer Olympics}}. Nigej (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
That is not clear from the RFC. In fact, the RFC says that it deals with "all these squad templates", which indicates that we are discussing 'current squads'. GiantSnowman 20:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Pretty clear from the nomination, before and after the quoted part, that WCM is talking about tournament templates. All of their examples are also for tournaments. Gonnym (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be helpful if WCM clarified their opening statement. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Current/Active team squad navboxes are not of discussion for this rfc. Sorry if that wasn't clear. They don't represent any major issue. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Hell, I feel strongly that navbox proliferation is a big problem, and has gone completely ridiculous. If someone proposed deprecating them altogether, I'd be in favor. But that being said, even championship-only navboxes aren't the answer; we all know sports where longstanding rosters on perennial champions can easily result in players with a dozen or more boxes. Ravenswing 00:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure of what the numbers are precisely, but it seems there are more squad navboxes for non-championship teams than there are for winning teams. One example is Mithali Raj's page where there are only six navboxes for championships and twelve non-championship teams. I don't think players who have been on multiple winning teams consist of too many navboxes at the moment. Derek Jeter has won the world series only five teams and has five Yankees World Series champion team navboxes. LeBron James has only seven championship, NBA and international tournments, navboxes. The only clutter of sorts on James' page is all the award navboxes. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
    Nikola Karabatić the best handballer has at the moment 11 navboxes for the national team (2012 onward). I thinks other users will create the boxes before 2012 too. In the end this would mean he would have around 20 boxes. If only first places at the Olympics, World Championships and Euros were allowed he would still have 10 boxes. This is only with the national team. If also navboxes for championships club seasons would be created this would mean he would have additionally 19 navboxes. In the end he would have around 30 boxes. In my eyes this is too much. I personally think only navboxes about the current team should be allowed or ells only navboxes with the national team and not about club championships seasons. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm of the view that all sports should be considered together. A navbox is "a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia" (WP:NAVBOX). Surely issues relating to {{Japan men's football squad 2020 Summer Olympics}} and {{Japan men's volleyball team 2020 Summer Olympics}} are fundamentally the same. And even outside the multi-sport area I don't see why Japan at the nnnn football world cup should be treated differently to Japan at the nnnn volleyball world cup (or whatever). In addition the issue of WP:TCREEP, making navboxes less useful as their numbers in each article increases, applies universally. If we're going to keep these, we need arguments based on their usefulness for navigation. Nigej (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Although having said all that, I would assume that if we were to embark on a significant deletion of these via TfD, then each sport would be considered separately at that stage. Not knowing the logistics, I'm hoping we can have a WP:SPORTSNAVBOX (or whatever), detailing a consensus approach, which would enable a TfD nominator to make a proposal based on that. I think that would carry more weight than the current situation, where the nominator usually argues on the basis of earlier TfDs. Nigej (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree, something along the lines of WP:PERFNAV and WP:FILMNAV, particularly "avoid over-proliferation of navigation templates" sounds like a good idea. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I can only speak for the sports that I spend the most time working on, but I feel like things are okay as they are for soccer, rugby union and cricket: current squad templates for most existing clubs (at least at the top level where info is available), and historic squads for all teams at major international tournaments (e.g. World Cups, European Championships, etc.). That last one should only apply to competitions that take place every few years though, so not the Six Nations in rugby union, and not individual cricket tours (even the Ashes). Things seem okay in the NFL sphere too, where every team has navboxes for their current roster and any championship years. I honestly don't believe this is excessive. – PeeJay 08:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
They may not be excessive but the question to be answered is a different one, that is whether they really serve their sole purpose, which it to help readers navigate between articles. Nigej (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Current squad templates seem fine for navigation for me (even if for example a cricketer may be in 2 or 3 teams at the same time). I already raised a discussion for some cricket templates here], and wouldn't be averse to removing some others (does the fact that two people played together at the 1992 Cricket World Cup really mean that you'd use that to navigate between them, for instance?) I do however think this will be hard to do at a general sports level, as there will be nuances for different sports (which lots of sports editors won't know about, if they aren't involved with that sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
If we were to go down the route of saying that tournament team templates are ok for the winning team, then I agree that a further restriction of saying that even some of these are of doubtful use, that would certainly need to be done at the individual sport level. Nigej (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I believe they serve their intended purpose. I can't speak for every reader, but I use the navbox templates a lot. – PeeJay 10:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I get the feeling people like to tinker with this site just for the sake of it. I don't see what value removing these navboxes would have, so I vote to just keep them as is. If there's too many of them, so what?--Ortizesp (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
When navboxes are used as decoration rather than for their stated purpose of navigation between closely related articles, articles become cluttered with the navboxes actually being a hindrance to navigation, defeating their purpose. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't believe any of these are used decoratively, they all serve as useful navigation points between related articles. Talking about the FIFA World Cup squad navboxes, I don't believe it's at all unreasonable to expect to be able to navigate between the members of the Republic of Ireland's 2002 World Cup squad, for example. – PeeJay 16:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
A few comments. Just to reiterate, the RfC isn't about general squad templates (current, former, historical, etc.) but about tournament squads. Lets not sidetrack this discussion. I agree with Nigej that this is a general issue to all sports and should not be treated as a case by case issue. I also agree with Malo95 that having 20 navboxes for an individual just for tournament teams is a real issue as at that point editors are more likely to just to not use it. I think WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns are valid here. While Wikipedia:Not everything needs a navbox is an essay, I agree with that statement - not everything needs a navbox. Playing in the world cup but coming last with zero wins is not really an achievement. Some countries have it easier qualifying for the tournament than others (European qualification is hard while that isn't correct for all zones). I can see the value in the winning team and partially in the runner up. Another point that is worth noting is that a lot (all maybe?) of these templates don't have an associated category which is pretty telling. If we don't deem these teams to be worthy of categorization then a template is probably also not appropriate. If this RfC passes and there still is an issue, we can have a follow up discussion later - not everything needs to be solved now. So support the 2nd option. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the default should be no, unless there is a project-specific consensus for major tournaments, so defaulting to keep for the most major soccer, rugby, and cricket tournaments. These navboxes would either help me navigate between players on the same World Cup squad or provide me a clear view of which other players were on the same World Cup squad in sports with important quadrennial World Cups, but they should be the exception rather than the rule. SportingFlyer T·C 23:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Since this RFC has expired today, I think there is consensus for the first and second options. Normally, prior to this discussion, if a runner-up squad template or a non-runner-up squad navbox was nominated at Tfd, it was based on the merit that it was not capable of navigation and that it was of a not notable team, unlike a championship-winning team. So, I guess, even with the consideration of the case-by-case for the sports project as noted a few times such as the soccer, rugby, and cricket projects, consensus can change. WP:SPORTSNAVBOX is a great idea so there is a clear procedure on what navboxes for teams should and shouldn't be created. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Template:Sports links at TfDEdit

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

GA ReassessmentEdit

Major League Baseball has been nominated for a community 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. OnlyFixingProse (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sports film" classificationEdit

Hey all, I've opened a discussion over at [[10]] about classifying films as "sports film" for the list. So far it seems to be somewhat up the editor at the time. Does the Sports WikiProject have any sort of standardisation for this sort of thing? -- NotCharizard 🗨 03:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Notability guidelines for association footballEdit

Do you agree or disagree with the proposal shown here for the notability criteria for association football (soccer)?


Significant coverage is likely to exist for association football (soccer) figures if they meet the following:

  • Have participated in a major senior level international competition (such as the FIFA World Cup with qualifiers, the continental championships with some qualifiers depending on which confederation, and the continental Nations Leagues), excluding friendlies
  • Have participated in the playoff stages of major international club competitions (such as the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Europa League, the Copa Libertadores or the Copa Sudamericana)
  • Have participated in at least one of of the following leagues: Bundesliga (Germany), Premier League (England), La Liga (Spain), Serie A (Italy), Ligue 1 (France), Major League Soccer (United States and Canada), Argentine Primera División (Argentina), Campeonato Brasileiro Série A (Brazil), and other proposed leagues that are deemed notable

Players and/or managers who do not meet the above may still be notable, although sources should not be assumed to exist without further proof. A listing of other competitions wherein participation may lead to significant coverage is maintained by the WP:FOOTY wikiproject, at [link].

Ivan Milenin (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal, while noting the list of notable leagues is still a work in progress. Provided this shuts out leagues that do not receive significant coverage. OGLV (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose While it is more defined and detailed, this is basically a rehash of the old FOOTY notability guideline[11], that Village Pump decided we should remove based on the criteria being simply participating(see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability). While one of football's problem was the large list of leagues and define the "fully professional" aspect of them, the Village Pump was looking at several sports and with exception of the Olympics, removing simple participation as a valid criteria. This proposal would still be considered notability based on particiaption. There were discussion for alternatives/replacements, but none could be decided and for now just using WP:GNG is the replacement. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose this specific proposal hasn't been discussed anywhere beforehand, so shouldn't have been put up for RFC. This is almost the same wording as the old WP:NFOOTY, which was depreciated. Some proposal to add criteria for NFOOTY could be tabled into an RFC at some point, but not this undiscussed proposal. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If discussion had preceded this proposal, it would never have reached this stage; it lacks the necessary concision and clarity, while also deferring to a non-guideline page. It looks like an attempt to reinstate the old unacceptable guideline. If a solid proposal cannot be formulated from the discussions on this, i.e. one that enjoys a good level of consensus from those discussions, one should not be brought forward here. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above comments and the fact that we need something very precise. Phrases like "with some qualifiers depending on which confederation", "such as ..." and "... and other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" make it unacceptable. Nigej (talk) 11:33, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Participation-based criteria was shot down sports-wide. Full stop. Looking back at the discussions in which the OP participated at the time, he cannot be unaware of this. People are going to have to get used to creating soccer articles based on whether the subjects meet the GNG, and preferably beyond the mass sub-stub creation that (a) resulted in the breathtakingly absurd figure of one of SEVEN biographical articles being of soccer players, which (b) led to the open revolt shooting down participation criteria NSPORTS-wide. Ravenswing 03:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per above comments, and because it doesn't include all aspects of the proposed entry within the entry, instead linking to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/Association football. I also don't believe it is appropriate to hold this discussion here, rather than at WP:NSPORT or preferably WP:VPP. BilledMammal (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


  • I was chosen at random by a bot to comment this proposal. I waited in the hope that I would see comments from others. It's difficult for me to make a comment without seeing first some arguments in favour of it and against it. At this time, I only have a question. What is the purpose of having a criteria to determine that significant coverage is likely to exist? It seems to me that the important thing is whether there is actually some coverage. Even if we know that coverage is likely to exist, we still have to find that coverage. Otherwise, there is nothing to put in the article, except information that would fit better in a list. Conversely, even if coverage is unlikely to exist, if it actually exists and it's notable, then there is content for an article. Again, I am not against or in favour of it. It's just the question that comes to my mind. Dominic Mayers (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
    Dominic Mayers, I think, and someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the rationale is that said "significant coverage" that is presumed to exist might not be readily accessible to many English WP editors, and that would disproportionately affect players from non-Western and/or underpriviledged countries; who would, presumably, be as notable as their English or American counterparts (because there is no reason to assume they wouldn't be), but cannot be immediately confirmed due to the inaccessibility of sources (many of which would exist only in physical printed media) from those countries to English or American editors. Said articles affected would be stubs, since, as you note, there would be no coverage to fill them with. But the idea is that, at some time in the future, those stubs may be turned into full articles when sourced coverage is brought forth. (The deletion policy is not that an article already contain content, only that it is notable and suitablesources exist from which content CAN be created in the future). Hope that helps :) SirTramtryst (talk) 01:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    What I don't understand is what criteria would be used, if not the known coverage, to create these stubs? Is the proposal to create a stub for all players that meet these requirements, even though we know there is a possibility that some might not have any coverage? It seems to me that we need evidence of sufficient coverage in addition to the proposed criteria before we create a stub. Note that a reference, even if it's printed material that is not available online, count as coverage. If the issue is whether coverage that is not available online is valid coverage, then the RfC asked the wrong question. Dominic Mayers (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
    It's a completely undiscussed proposal, which is different to the main proposals being discussion elsewhere. I'm sure this breaks some RFC rule, as this proposal has not been discussed anywhere beforehand. The inevitable failure of this poorly thought out RFC shouldn't be seen as a reason to reject any future, decently discussed football notability RFC. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Where to discuss other purposes of this matter if RFC fails to work at this stage? Ivan Milenin (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Fwiw, I think this proposal is likely irrelevant. I can't think that any major international players such as these wouldn't meet GNG regardless. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:41, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not sure that's true. "other proposed leagues that are deemed notable" for instance, seems to include the old 4th division (and 3rd south, 3rd north), way below international level. Nigej (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Check this [out if this suffice your concern]. Ivan Milenin (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, that's a crazy backdoor to "all professional leagues". This proposal had me thinking it was literally just top leagues that directly mentioned. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Association football at FAREdit

I have nominated Association football for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Sonny LeonEdit

I recently created an article for Sonny Leon, the jockey of Rich Strike, the winner of the 2022 Kentucky Derby. His notability has been questioned. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)