Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 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[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[reply]

TLDR: why are there British and English/Scottish/Welsh/NI categories alongside one another?

LONG: Just wondering if anyone is able to clarify the rationale behind most of the British gendered sportspeople categories being non-diffusing. I have been in a dispute today with someone regarding a related issue, and although in that case there was no need for there to be 'Major League Baseball players from England' and 'Major League Baseball players from the United Kingdom' on the same article as one is obviously a subcategory of the other, part of their argument was that there are plenty of other British sportspeople related categories where both are displayed, albeit inconsistently.

For example, Category:British female field hockey players (currently 91 entries) states that it is non-diffusing, but there are female players in the 4 home nation subcats (114 English, 16 NI, 9 Wales, 41 Scotland) so in the British cat there should be a total of 180+, taking into account that there will be some stubs of British Olympic players from back in the day with little known about their background. Or if in fact non-diffusing should be ignored, the British total should only include that small number of players that can't be sorted further. So one issue is that the situation is something of a messy halfway house, and the other is that the official instruction is is for non-diffusion, so there should be 'Welsh female field hockey players' alongside 'British female field hockey players' in every relevant article, even though that flies in the face of other subcategorisation rules.

I see the British categories for other sports also have this instruction, although several of them don't have gendered home nation subcats, so it makes more sense to have 'British M/F fooers' and 'English [no gender] fooers'. However I checked cycling and it is a similar mess to hockey: Category:British female cyclists has 82 entries, but 109/4/26/38 (=177) in the subcats, so surely the total should either be all the Brits ~180, or only the non Eng/Sco/Wal ones which would probably only be a dozen or so.

I'm Scottish myself, so I fully understand the situation that the home nations exist separately for some sports and not for others, and that the status of the home nations as 'four countries within a sovereign state, one of which is claimed by another sovereign state and they have some joint affairs' (talking about all-Ireland) is something of an anomaly in terms of nationality overall and it makes categorising accurately a tricky affair. I'm not saying I think the non-diffusing is wrong, but I would like more clarity on why it has been chosen as a default, so that those hatnotes can possibly be expanded to explain the situation fully. And as I've pointed out, the 'rule' isn't being applied consistently in any way at present. So is it not maybe easier to remove said stipulation and just have the home nations as the defined nationality under the British umbrella category, without an expectation that they would be listed in that category too? Crowsus (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nobody can be bothered to comment on this, fair enough, but I will note it here that I intend to tidy it up at some point, and my preferred method would be to move all the confirmed English etc persons in each sport to that category, leaving only those whose origins are unspecified or are UK naturalised in the British parent cat. So if anyone objects to that, this would be the place to let me know please. Crowsus (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions[edit]

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mass-TfD college softball navboxes nomination[edit]

I'm not sure that WikiProject College Softball is active so I'm pinging related projects, in case anyone has an opinion on the mass-TfD. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#College softball class-/position-specific award navboxes if you care either way. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of those lists bloated with unsourced examples. This has been raised several times over the years a the article talk page, to no avail. Probably if I start cutting it will meet with resistance from purveyors of fancruft, or be mistaken for vandalism, so I'm requesting the assistance, and cover, of other editors. My approach would be first to remove the unsourced examples, then run through the others to confirm that the sources support a 'Cinderella' designation. More thoughts welcome. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good grief: that article's a disgrace. It just seems to be a magnet for any time some team in some season in some sport was an underdog that succeeded despite the touts, and those examples would run into the tens of thousands. I would blow the examples up completely, to be honest: we don't need to have two hundred examples of someone scoring a hat trick, say, in order to adequately illustrate the term. A handful of links to appropriate team season articles, or to incidents with standalone articles, would be more than enough. Ravenswing 05:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Classic WP:EXAMPLEFARM when there is an embedded list of every time some subjective term was used, in this case "Cinderella". It would be best if these types of pages describe the general topic, with at best a few WP:DUE examples that are oft-mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Holy cats, lots of recentism too, as happens with such open lists. Yes, a massive cull looks required. Additionally, many of the examples presented are full paragraphs. I would suggest that any that survive the purge be limited to a sentence at most. If they are significant examples then as Ravenswing suggests then surely a sentence including an appropriate wikilink is the way to go. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for responding--there seems to be a consensus forming that the cuts can be deeper than I originally suggested, which would be fine. Perhaps mention of a few notable examples; for me, they could be James J. Braddock in boxing, Seabiscuit in horse racing and the 1969 Mets in baseball, but there are many possibilities. When the paring begins, we can copy and paste this discussion to the article talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fewer examples the better, and they ought to be restricted to the bare mentions; putting any in at all just encourages editors to start the bloat all over again. Ravenswing 08:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we must, put the examples in prose, not list form. People just love to add to lists, but not as much with integrating into existing prose. —Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do we even need this article? It's an idiom people use to describe a fairy tale. I don't see what we gain from having examples. Could easily have a sentence or two at Cinderella about it being used to describe an unlikely sports winner and redirect there. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree 100%. Cinderella (disambiguation) says: "Cinderella (sports), a team or player who advances much further in a tournament than expected" Fair enough, but we don't need an article listing a random selection of examples. No encyclopedic values at all, from my perspective. Needs to go. Nigej (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with that. The article is rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we end up with a consensus here - I do think we'd still need to take it to AfD, rather than being bold due to the vast history of the article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'd think there's enough sources to write about the general topic, even if we don't need (most of) the examples. —Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not arguing for clean-up. WP:GNG says "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." To me, this a text-book example of exactly that. It is currently "an indiscriminate collection of information" and turning it into something that is not "indiscriminate" seems like an impossible task to me. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Realistically, if you cut the examples out, this is simply an article that says "sometimes people use the term "a Cinderella story" to refer to a team or individual who received success against the odds". Yes, it's used A LOT, but that doesn't make the term itself notable for its own article. This seems like a wiktionary thing if anything. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pointing out that we have Underdog and Dark horse. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And there doesn't seem to be any difference between an underdog and a cinderella- both refer to teams expected to do badly that end up doing well. But underdog has the advantage of not having 100 unencyclopedic examples in the article, like cinderella article does. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those three could be all merged into one article. It's clearly a concept. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and there's Comeback (sports) too, a vaguely related idea, which also has a seemingly random set of examples. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I've left notification of this discussion at Talk:Cinderella (sports) § Page content.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

As above, I propose the merger (and redirection) of these articles: Cinderella Underdog and Dark horse into comeback (sports). They are very much the same item, with slightly differing meanings, but the same overall ideal. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Not sure about Cinderella, but Oppose Underdog (more useful content than the Wiktionary entry). Cinderella is about underdog (rather merge it there), not about comeback. Dark horse is not even sports-oriented article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose It's a stretch to call any of those a comeback. —Bagumba (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have an alternative title? We currently have four articles for what is one thing with slightly different meanings. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Comeback" is a different topic, mostly about overcoming a deficit. The other three could be mergeable. No, I don't have a suggested title at this time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative proposal(s)[edit]

It seems like the proposal as written was a little off the mark. Would anyone agree to a straight merge of Cinderella and Underdog as being two sides of the same coin? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's the inclusion criteria for this category? The page should have a short explanation just as the Covid-cats did. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For example is not allowing Rus/Blr athletes to compete really an affect to the event? Not competing can be compared to "sports events affected by athlete injury" or something similar. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For most events listed in that category, the "impact" is just not allowing Russian/Belarusian athletes, which is a non defining characteristic of that event. A small number of these bans may have had larger consequences e.g. Wimbledon ban on Russian and Belarusian players, which is valid for that category, but having every UEFA football and every FINA swimming event since 2022 listed there simply because of their bans is ludicrous and not encyclopedic. Unless the invasion/country bans had a significant impact on an event, e.g. it was cancelled/postponed/relocated because of the invasion, or there was some large consequence of the ban as with Wimbledon, then it shouldn't be listed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's an argument that something like the 2022 FUFA World Cup (or at least the article on European qualification) would make sense, as there was a protest around not playing Russia and matches involving the Ukraine were postponed, but simply not having Russian athletes not compete isn't good enough. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree that it makes sense in some cases like 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA second round, which was impacted by Russia being kicked out. But not 2021–22 UEFA Champions League, where no Russian teams were left in the competition at the time of the decision (or even worse, 2022 UEFA Champions League final is in this category, even though no Russian team could have qualified for the final, as they'd all been eliminated previously anyway). We need a clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, or the category should be deleted for failing WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Champions League final was relocated from Russia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sports source list[edit]

Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources and Category:WikiProject reference libraries have a few source lists for individual sports, but the selection is limited. Is there potential for a general purpose sports source/reference list? Something like this might be helpful for us less sports-inclined editors when working with sourcing backlogs or trying to find evidence of notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's too many possible sources in my opinion since every sport and country has their own media, experts and so forth. And notability concerns are basically freebies here - you can always make one and there's absolutely no consequence for abusing it or just getting it completely wrong. I also don't really like the idea of limiting the user of any more sources since many of the current guidelines deny good sources due to silly things like the author publishing it on blogspot or due to users getting their website blackballed from here as a source due to it being their own.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there's nowhere to search for notability, then I'm just going to keep using Google to determine whether I nominate a sportsbio for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] is a great resource for searching American and Canadian topics, whereas Trove is good for Australian topics, and the British Newspaper Archive for the UK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Came across this list that is clearly very incomplete. If you have thematic knowledge, please expand. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede says "list of sportspeople who have moved to compete for another country", which is distinctly different from competing for two different countries. The article title is vague as well, are we strictly talking about people who have represented a nation as a part of a national team, or those that have changed the sports country that they have? Those are two distinct things - in terms of association football even, there's hundreds of people who played at youth level for one country, and then another at international seniors level. I think a straight "must have competed for two distinct senior national teams" is a much better inclusion criteria. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sports country as the page is not oriented to team sports. Football has a seperate page - List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


It seems we've put more attention to lists recently, so here's more: Winning streak, List of winning streaks in the Olympic Games, Perfect season and Losing streak. They seem quite USA-oriented. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup[edit]

Hello. I have added new references to independent sources. These sources disclose information "Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup", in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), These sources is reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.

Also see the new notes "Draft talk:1987 Wrestling World Cup". Tschin As (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merger-related discussion topic[edit]

I created a new merger-related talk section at UT Arlington Mavericks that I believe would make for an interesting discussion topic, if anybody is interested. (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

help with vandalism?[edit]

I've been reverting a certain user (Adelbeighou and anon) several times at FINA Water Polo World Cup, and it looks like an edit war between us, or a content dispute, although I haven't received an answer to the talk page. This edit has removed FR Yugoslavia/SCG medals and changed them to Serbian. Does anyone else think such edit is vandalism? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this might be a sock. [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Certainly seems to fit the bill, can't hurt to list them as a new case (though a CU is pointless given there aren't any new accounts). Primefac (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suspected Gagibgd myself. CheckUser would be denied as Primefac mentioned, so it'd need clean evidence. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not vandalism, it's a point of view, but I do agree we're at the point where discussion should happen. Keeping the WRONGVERSION on the page for a bit while that happens isn't the end of the world, given that it's not exactly a high-traffic page. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I've been reverting a certain user... several times" - lie. Two times at most. "This edit has removed FR Yugoslavia/SCG medals" - lie again. I left note with explanation below medal table. I find your behavior worse than vandalism. The moment you have content dispute with someone you try to have that person banned by accusing them of being a sock without evidence. You did the same thing here. Disgusting behavior. Adelbeighou (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Take it down a notch, please. Name-calling isn't going to get this resolved. Civil discussion will. Primefac (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No name-calling here just calling out bullying of new users. The real issue I raised above should be addressed. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I share a different point of view from yours. And as far as I can tell from my time in Wikipedia, it's shared with most editors. I'm sorry if my point of view and edits offend you. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't offend me. Adelbeighou (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion, for reference, is at Talk:FINA Water Polo World Cup § Serbia and Montenegro. Primefac (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Nike sweatshops, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply[reply]

Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup[edit]

I have added new notes in Draft talk:1987 Wrestling World Cup Tschin As (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working on an article on the ongoing bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group[edit]

With the possibility of major changes in sports media, I thought it would be a good idea to work an article about Diamond Sports Group's ongoing bankruptcy. Help is appreciated! Draft:Bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest just expanding Diamond Sports Group, and only splitting out later if it became WP:TOOBIG and the bankruptcy details were notable enough to merit a separate page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, it's not too long. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix[edit]

At Talk:2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix we are discussing the meaning of cancellation in sports. You may be interested in the discussion. -- (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secretive discussion[edit]

A bunch of editors are having a secretive discussion about a massive deletion/draftification process, that should be discussed centrally, not on a user page. Please see this; User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification BilledMammal of quizzing people as to how they found it, which is very worrying. Spike 'em (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]