This 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.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for
GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : *
Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) *
Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize
Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. *
Sport in the United Kingdom - the
Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
If they're all about potential expansion, then they should have
consistent titles. And if they are then just "Expansion of ..." is very misleading to the reader, since it strongly implies a history of the expansion that has already occurred. As for no such article NFL, that's not a "problem" to fix, per se, it's just work no volunteers have done yet, assuming
reliable sources for such work could be found, and there's no way to force the voluteers to do it. But suggesting such an article at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football might encourage the work. That said, it needs to stay within
"Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, at all of these articles, and that can be challenging. There's a particular encyclopedic way to write about notable plans for the future and notable expected future events (and it's not the way a newspaper or blog would probably do it). —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 23:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
A professional lacrosse franchise (formerly Chrome) recently rebranded to take the identity of a defunct franchise (Denver Outlaws), and thus
a discussion is taking place as to how to react to this. The status quo is that
Denver Outlaws covers both the defunct franchise and the current franchise's operations from 2024 onwards, while
Chrome Lacrosse Club covers covers the current franchise's operations from 2019 to 2023. Any input from WikiProject Sports members as to whether or not this should be changed in some way would be greatly appreciated. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Charlotte Hornets existed from 1988-2002 but moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets then renamed to New Orleans Pelicans.
The Charlotte Hornets are now
retconned as having suspended operations from 2002 to 2004, while the Pelicans are considered a 2002 expansion team even though they really aren't. They became the Charlotte Bobcats from 2004-2014, and then went back to being the Charlotte Hornets from 2014-present, maintaining the name that their competitor (New Orleans Pelicans) once had. Hope you can apply to your situation. -
BeFriendlyGoodSir (
talk) 04:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Sports Spectrum "[Name] is Christian." spam
Hello all,
I'm unsure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes.
I've viewed many athlete articles over the years, and I've noticed that, in an otherwise well-written article, the "personal life" section starts off with the above appellation.
The problem with this is that a) the site in question is essentially a tabloid for Christian sports with no journalistic credibility; b) no other source is ever included; and c) they are often standalone "fun facts" style sentences with little or no additional info connecting to the rest of the article.
By encyclopedic standards, the relevancy of religious information in a biography depends on whether the person is actually prominent as a member of that faith. For instance,
Tim Tebow is very outspoken and
Amar'e Stoudemire is a very prominent convert to Judaism. But for the bulk of these athletes, the additions are unnecessary and seem like spam to direct clicks towards Sports Spectrum. These are athletes, not philosophers or religious authorities.
I think these should be undertaken to be removed but was curious to see what others think.
I completely agree. That website is NOT an independent, reliable source on anything. It is only ever going to tell us positive things about a person being a Christian. It's never going to tell us if someone stops being a Christian. Nor will it talk about people who aren't Christian. Yes, it simply IS Christian spam.
HiLo48 (
talk) 05:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Agreed. We don't, after all, toss in other unremarkable traits such as "He has red hair" or "She was in her college chorus." Someone like Tim Tebow or Muhammed Ali, an athlete whose faith is a frequent and notable topic, that's one thing. The vast run of athletes, no. (And why just athletes? How often do we remark that this musician or that Nobel laureate is "Christian?" Come to that, how often do we categorize then as Catholic, Unitarian or agnostic?)
Ravenswing 05:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)reply
"She was in her college chorus":
Fraternities are often mentioned though.—
Bagumba (
talk) 08:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Split discussion on Lionel Messi
A discussion is underway to determine whether or not splitting two sections of the
Lionel Messi article into their own article is the best solution to resolve the article's
WP:SIZERULE issue. Input from as many voices in the community as possible would be much appreciated. —
AFC Vixen 🦊 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)reply
For those wondering, the finished discussion is in
Archive 27. - 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
BeFriendlyGoodSir (
talk) 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)reply
The article "
List of U.S. stadiums by capacity" ranks the
Bristol Motor Speedway on first place. This makes sense considering that it has 153,000 seats, more than any other stadium. However, I question whether it can be considered a stadium: in fact, although it is fully enclosed, it has hosted american football games only a few times and is not designed for such events. Also, if it was to be considered a Stadium, the
List of stadiums by capacity would include it on first position, and the article on
Narendra Modi Stadium would not refer to the latter as the largest stadium in the world by capacity. Anyway, in the case you agree that Bristol Motor Speedway can be considered a Stadium, the other pages I mentioned should be corrected. Kind regards,
14 novembre (
talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Since that list of stadia does not require, by definition, that they be venues for American football, I don't see why Bristol Motor Speedway should be excluded. It's a stadium for a sporting event, with seats for spectators; done deal.
Ravenswing 11:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ravenswing I see what you mean, however the main argument against it being a Stadium is the fact that no other article refers to it as the largest stadium in the world, also, by searching "largest stadium in the world" most sources report
Narendra Modi Stadium or incorrectly
Rungrado May Day Stadium14 novembre (
talk) 19:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Truth be told, that's a fairly terrible argument. The measure of whether a building is an athletic stadium isn't, and can't be,
whether or not a Wikipedia article says so. Is motor racing a sport? Most people, including NSPORTS, would hold so. Does this stadium host motor racing? Few people would claim otherwise. Therefore. And your own statement highlights the issue: that nationalism, parochialism and partisanship colors the argument.
Ravenswing 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Yes it's a sports stadium, because it hosts sports and hosting American football is not a requirement to be an American stadium.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Ravenswing @
Joseph2302 I agree that motor racing is a sport. However, we have
List of sports venues by capacity, and we alla agree that not all of them can be considered stadiums. It is difficult to say whether a sports venue can be considered a Stadium or not, however, most sources, external to Wikipedia, report
Narendra Modi Stadium as the largest in the world. Anyway, if you agree
Bristol Motor Speedway actually is a stadium, we should correct the other articles I mentioned in my first comment. Kind regards,
14 novembre (
talk) 11:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
It obviously IS a stadium. So I agree we need to correct our articles.
MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Personal best?
I'm looking over some early female athletes (say from the
1922 Women's World Games and
1923 Women's Olympiad) and look at
Mary Lines: her infobox lists her top recorded Olympiad times as "personal bests", which is terminology
the citation, Track and Field Statistics also uses. For
Marcelle Neveuher Olympics.com page calls her 1928 Olympic result her "personal best". I know modern athletes train so that their season performance peaks at top race days, but even then plenty of people clock PBs at practice or lesser races. With 1920s female athletes even (pseudo-)Olympic results can be difficult if not impossible to find published anywhere outside maybe some deep unsorted local newsmag archive, so the notion of these times being labeled a "personal best" seems rather odd.
Is there a different convention for elite athletes? for sports publications, for WP? Or is my amateur understanding of "personal best", as your best properly clocked time regardless of race, on point despite what these sources use (on generic captions)?
SamuelRiv (
talk) 05:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The short answer is that if it's not recorded, it won't end up on Wikipedia. "I was in my backyard when I got my personal best" might be a true statement, but only officially recorded times really count towards anything. We are not obligated to publish information about people, especially if that information doesn't exist. If a newspaper from 1920 lists Jane Doe running her personal best at a marathon, we use that information in the infobox up until the point when someone finds a recording from after that race, even if it's not her "final" personal best.
Primefac (
talk) 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The term has to be understood in context. Typically media-reported personal bests are for best times in official competition, where there is a neutral third party performing the timing, following a standard procedure. Athletes of course track their own personal bests during training, but this serves a different purpose and isn't an unbiased timing.
isaacl (
talk) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)reply
My question wasn't clear. When an source is using "personal best" in some ambiguous context like this, where the term "PB" is clearly just a template field across all athletes' pages, how should that be interpreted for, say, infoboxes? Because in the athletes I linked it seems they are taking the field title too literally (akin I suppose to
WP:HEADLINE?).
SamuelRiv (
talk) 17:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Now I'm not understanding your clarification. If a source uses "personal best" and it's the most recent/highest value for "personal best" that has been given in the sources... we use it?
Primefac (
talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Clarified below by Isaacl's statement.
Primefac (
talk) 17:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If the source is not clear from context if an official personal best or a training personal best is being referred to, then the corresponding article shouldn't use that source to verify an athlete's official personal best result. In the cases to which you are referring, as official times are being listed as personal bests, I think the context is that these are official personal best results. (The reliability of the source, though, is a separate question.)
isaacl (
talk) 17:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Numbering of Emperor's Cup & Emperor's Cup Finals pages, are out of sync
I need big time help concerning (for example)
2019 Emperor's Cup &
2019 Emperor's Cup final. I thought I had corrected the numbering on all those pages, but apparent I blundered. There pages missing or something, which is throwing off the numberings.
GoodDay (
talk) 21:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Website canvassing for changes to Wikipedia article terminology
Hey, I just wanted to make members of this WikiProject aware of
this website that's canvassing for changes to be made to terminology in sporting-related Wikipedia articles; so that editors are aware that this off-wiki canvassing is occurring. (Also notifying
WT:OLYMPICS.) All the best, —
a smart kitten[
meow 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This is a project of billionaire Peter Thiel's "Enhanced Games" enterprise. They want to ban the use of the word "doping" and change the word "cheated" to "fought for science and bodily sovereignty", among other things.
Jeff in CA (
talk) 20:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for letting us know. I'll be on the lookout.
Fyunck(click) (
talk) 21:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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
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
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