WikiProject Sports (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon
This 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 seasons

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

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

FIBA Archive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Rfc on sports team's navboxes

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks for adding it. I just forgot about it. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Even for runner-up teams, it seems like a lot. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I'd be up for deleting both. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if WCM clarified their opening statement. GiantSnowman 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment

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)[reply]

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

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)[reply]

"Sports film" classification

Hey all, I've opened a discussion over at [[1]] 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)[reply]

RFC: Notability guidelines for association football

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Association football at FAR

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)[reply]

Sonny Leon

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)[reply]

90min services section edit request

Hello editors, I'm M and I work for Minute Media. I was hoping one of you might be kind enough to look over an open edit request for the Services section I posted on the 90min talk page. I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. Looking forward to working with you all and thanks in advance for taking a look. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles do not mention what sport they cover

There are a significant number of sport articles, usually lists of season results, or tournament results, that make no mention of what sport is involved. This is not helpful to the reader who does not already know the sport, and makes it difficult to compose short descriptions. I fix what I can, but it is tedious to work through several categories from a season article to find out that the Melbourne Renegades are cricketers. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to give me a better example. That article starts: The Melbourne Renegades are an Australian professional men's Twenty20 franchise cricket club based in Melbourne, the capital city of the Australian state of Victoria. Whilst this isn't optimal wording, the lede sentence specifically says cricket club. Are there articles that don't say the sport in the lede sentence? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this is better: The Melbourne Renegades are an Australian professional men's cricket team from Melborne, Victoria. A Twenty20... Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Squash (sport), 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, 6 June 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team[reply]

Work on new article "1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game" of Australian Rules football completed

The lengthy and arduous task of compiling the accurate and detailed article on the 28 October 1916 exhibition match of Australian Rules football, contested in London between two teams of AIF soldiers, is now completed. Please see both 1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game and Talk:1916 Pioneer Exhibition Game. Lindsay658 (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titlename of tennis tournaments

Hi, we on the tennis project have incurred into some problems regarding the choice of titlename of the main article of a tournament. We have internal guidelines who says to "avoid if possible sponsor name in the title of main article". We agree on that and the project has been consistent on avoiding them, whenever is possible. (We use sponsor names in the title only on yearly editions).

In the specific case, though, we are at a stall between two opposite interpretations of WP:COMMONNAME policy, of what is "common, recognizable, short, coincise" titlename .

There are two interpretations i resume here, but i really want the discussion to be continued there, because some users have participated and someone made an hard point to not move the discussion from there.

So, only for the sake of helping you to have a grasp of the whole situation, the two different approaches to the aforementioned wiki policy are:

Top sources (advocated by Fyunck)
The common name is the name most used by sources, prominently by top quality newspapers (ha added some specific links), which are the sources we use for writing the article itself. Plus historic names are better than recent ones. He argues on having little compromise but just between these two criteria when choosing the title.

Top search results (advocated by me, Opencross)
The common name is the most searched name (in google searches) among those prominent sources (official, newspapers and such) use to refer to the tournament. So we should choose the one which is a compromise over the most looked at, and thus used more by people. Preference should be given, in case of similar popularity, to the city name most looked at, if two locations are used.

This resume is not complete or detailed, it's just a resume, I don't want to dig into it further, you can read more about it and the counterarguments to both proposals here and in the link posted in the first lines above ( which is the main section of this link), and continue the discussion there.

I think that, being this a general case over a wikipedia policy, the main project should be involved and give their opinions on. Cheers. --Opencross (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help with Dodgeball World Championship

Hi everyone,

I've started an article on the Dodgeball World Championship, but as I lack experience, I'd really appreciate help with editing and improving it. Thanks! Spiritof73 (talk) 08:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

90min lead edit request

Hello editors, I'm M and I work for Minute Media. I was hoping one of you might be kind enough to look over an open edit request for the lead of the 90min article I posted on the 90min Talk page. I won't make any edits myself because of my COI. Looking forward to working with you all and thanks in advance for taking a look. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unreferenced 'results' articles

Hi - I'm looking to get some eyes from experienced editors on sports topics on an issue with a couple of articles. I've indef blocked one of the editors involved for double (or more like quadrupling) down on personal attacks, but the content issue they were angry about doesn't sit well with me so I'd appreciate some input from others.

Draft:United States results in women's freestyle wrestling was recently created in article space; it's essentially an alternative version of the article United States results in men's freestyle wrestling, but with the content changed to show the results in the women's sport. It was draftified on the grounds that it was effectively unreferenced - there are three external links given in the 'references' section, none of which is live, and looking at archived versions it's not obvious how they support the content. To make any of the content verifiable, some work would need to be done on the referencing.

The author of the article took exception to the draftification, and started throwing around accusations of misogyny, which they refused to step back from after multiple warnings and attempts to explain the NPP review process, hence they block. While the personal attacks were unacceptable, I have some sympathy for their argument that the sourcing on the old men's article is no better than that of the new women's one - this is correct, it literally has the same three external links as refs, which don't directly support any of the content. So my question for editors here is whether anyone has the knowledge of appropriate sourcing in this subject, and the time and interest, to improve on the sourcing for both articles, improving the verifiability of the existing men's article, and allowing the draft women's article to be moved back into mainspace uncontroversially. Is anyone up for this? Girth Summit (blether) 11:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the men's article cannot be appropriately verified, then anything unverified should be removed as per the usual rules. If this leaves us with an empty article, then it should be deleted. Same is true for the women's article; the only reason it got punted back to Draft is that it's not 12 years old (and thus not immune from dratification). Primefac (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, having just looked at the men's article, I think the main issue with either of these pages is that it is effectively a "summary" article, wherein the content might actually be sourced at the related page (e.g. the 1904 Olympic wrestling info is at the related Olympics page). Of course, this means that the references should be copied over, but then we go down a rabbit hole because the latter related page barely has references itself... Primefac (talk) 11:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's my issue - both articles are summaries, almost lists - they are probably verifiable if someone were willing to do the leg work and add the sources. Not my area at all though, I didn't want to start hacking away at anything if there are sources out there that could simply be added to support the existing content. Girth Summit (blether) 12:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medals sections of infoboxes

What do we think should be in the medals sections of infoboxes. I have seen and used age-limited events such as Youth Olympic Games, Universiade, FIBA Under-17 Basketball World Cup and regional championships such as FIBA Under-16 Americas Championship, NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships. It seems that if an event is important enough to have its own article, it is fair game for medals. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA aquatics events (see here). These are for YMCA competitors who are between the age of 12 and 21 who have not represented any post high school institutions. These competitions don't seem to have articles on WP, so I am wondering if I could include these in medals sections of infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:59, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got no response here. I did get a response at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes. I am not following this page anymore, but if you have further comments, comment there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think only international global events (World Championships and MSE games) should be included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the discussion in one place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Infoboxes#Medals_element_in_infoboxes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Women's Championship"

FYI, the usage of Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | ) is under discussion; see talk: FA Women's Championship -- (talk) 03:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:HC Visé Basse Meuse#Requested move 21 June 2022


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:HC Visé Basse Meuse#Requested move 21 June 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Governing Body

I am hoping someone involved in the WikiProject Sports can tell me if there is an official manner in which an organization becomes a World Governing Body for a specific sport, other than an organization claiming the title. I am particularly interested with respect to the sport of Pickleball. The International Federation of Pickleball has claimed to the the world governing body since it was created by USA Pickleball in 2010, but USA Pickleball has since withdrawn. The World Pickleball Federation was formed in 2018, but has fewer member countries than the IFP. USA Pickleball hasn't stated what they plan to do, but they represent a majority of the current world pickleball players. Canada, representing the second largest number of players, is a member of the WPF. India, representing the third largest number of players, is a member of the IFP. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. OvertAnalyzer (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of World Cup/Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals to infoboxes

Should World Cup/Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals (for events being held every year) be added to info boxes of athlete bios? My initial thought is they shouldn't be, and the infoboxes should be reserved for continental/world championships, Olympics and other major MSE events. Otherwise, where do we draw the line? What does everyone else think? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:CLalgo has been added Grand Slam/Grand Prix medals to judo articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only editor/sport having these medals added to the info boxes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Sportsfan 1234: This is a discussion you should have started before reverting edits, on the verge of edit warring, on the articles of Shady El Nahas, François Gauthier-Drapeau and Keagan Young. Now, let us break your question to its relevant components. In judo, the subject at matter, Grand Slam/Grand Prix events are part of the IJF World Tour and award as many (GP), or more (GS), world ranking points as continental championships.[3] These medals can be found in the infoboxes of most judoka, much thanks to the hard labor of JanPleun. World cup events aren't held in judo for many years now, and irrelevant to the subject at hand. CLalgo (talk) 18:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You need to stop playing victim. Its getting old, fast. This also isn't a discussion exclusive to Judo, hence the inclusion of World Cup, as other sports title their world tours as "World Cups". Secondly, this discussions is about including events that are held on a yearly basis. Do we include them or not? Where do we draw the line? Literally no other sport has "World Tour" events listed in their infobox. I propose a list of years/medals like in Tennis [4], where major events such as the Olympics show medals, while World Tour events held everywhere are listed in a subsection in the infobox. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your wanted discussion may be broad, but your edit war is narrow and held over judo related articles. We shall discuss them, and not the whole project. In any case, You can't revert edits and delete information from articles, when in other articles of the same nature the information is available. Stop edit warring, stop threatening me after I've warned you not to edit war, and discuss the matter and not the person ("You need to stop playing victim.."). CLalgo (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing victim, claiming I am threatening you when we are having a civilized discussion, get a grip please. We are discussing this on WP:SPORTS so this discussion is NOT just related to judo. "When in other articles of the same nature the information is available" which is single sourced. Please point out to me bio's of any other sport with World Series events linked in their infobox. I will wait. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you are trying to achieve. Hundreds of judoka have medals in their infoboxes, but just these to Canadian judoka shouldn't? This is absurd. CLalgo (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:OTHERCONTENT. I am definitely not saying that. I don't think they should be included across all biography articles. Hence why I started a discussion here to gauge the opinion of a wider audience. As an edit warrior, CLalgo, you should know that discussions are important to solving disputes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First, if I were an edit warrior, I wouldn't know that.
Second, let's keep to the point. Why shouldn't the medals be presented as they are? @JanPleun, Simeon, Almagestas, Faycal.09, and DrAndCol: Pinging you editors that might have something to add on the subject. CLalgo (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is the infobox should be used to summarize key details. If we are going to list World Tour events in the infobox, we are going to run into lengthy infoboxes with way too much information. This is why I think it should be reserved for major events such as the Olympics or major multi sporting events. Everything else can be summarized in the prose or through a section dedicated to grand slams, such as majors in tennis. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I like the way information is presented in Roger Federer so, if there is consensus for it, we could update ((Infobox judoka)) to have a section for the IJF Grand Slam / Grand Prix medals. I would say it's reasonable to have some sport-specific senior level medals included, in addition to the world / continental / Olympic medals, as they form part of an athlete's career. For judo I think the number of medals may be ok (if displayed properly in the infobox) but I think for the Karate1 Premier League a talented karateka may end up with too many medals for the infobox. As another example, for archery I've been including the World Cup medals as well (e.g., Ella Gibson, Casey Kaufhold). I do think all the cadet / junior medals, such as in Michaela Polleres, is excessive so perhaps a line can be drawn at senior level medals (possibly with the exception of the Youth Olympic Games, and it's probably different for gymnastics as well). Simeon (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Simeon: Thanks for joining the discussion. My problem with adopting ((Infobox tennis biography))'s way of presenting Grand Slam achievements is that the GS host cities aren't fixed in judo as they are in tennis, and the the chronological order of GS\GP seems, to me, more important than their location. One thing I do like in tennis players articles is the Career statistics section, that could find a place in judoka articles. As previously said, that is a BIG project. Currently, the section most resembling it might be Sagi Muki's Titles section, with great similarities, of course. CLalgo (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234: For your arguments:
  1. WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't apply here, as this is not a case of "similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page", but in all other pages. There is a difference.
  2. WP:BATHWATER: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Even if you think the medals shouldn't be in the infobox, don't delete them. You may (after discussion) move them to a different section of the article, but just deleting them helps nobody and seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Having said that, I'll play. Say we do remove some of the sections from the medal table in the infoboxes.
  1. What sections will remain, and why those?
  2. What will the new medal section look like?
  3. Who will labor to transfer all medals from the infoboxes to the new section? For clearly, we do not want to lose any information, just to reorganize it. Keep in mind, there are currently more than 1,000 judoka articles. This won't be a small project. CLalgo (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:OTHERCONTENT doesn't apply here, as this is not a case of "similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page", but in all other pages. There is a difference. Still there is no deadline.
2) WP:BATHWATER: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! Even if you think the medals shouldn't be in the infobox, don't delete them. You may (after discussion) move them to a different section of the article, but just deleting them helps nobody and seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
Please stop ommitting facts. The medals removed are sourced in the article in question (in the prose) François Gauthier-Drapeau.
1) I think including medals on a continental basis and world basis is fine. The highest event in question. So for ex. in Judo that would be the World Championships / Olympics (at all age levels) and the Continental Championships/Continental Multi sport events. These would represent the highest level per category (world and continental).
2) Medals section should include those events only, I am not even sure what you mean by what they will look like.
3) Again there is no deadline, multiple editors can work to a common goal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: Please, elaborate your points.

  1. "Still there is no deadline." — What do you mean?
  2. "Please stop ommitting facts. The medals removed are sourced in the article in question (in the prose) François Gauthier-Drapeau." — Again, I'm missing your point and what facts were ommited. What specific edit are you referring to (please, provide a diff) and in any case, why shouldn't medals be presented in an organized way on top of any prose?
  3. "I think including medals on a continental basis and world basis is fine. The highest event in question. So for ex. in Judo that would be the World Championships / Olympics (at all age levels) and the Continental Championships/Continental Multi sport events. These would represent the highest level per category (world and continental)." — I do not know what your level of understanding in judo is, but claiming that the continental championships are of higher level or importance than the Judo World Masters is absurd, as it awards 157% (!) more ranking points than the continental championships. Even the Grand Slams award 43% more ranking points the the continental championships, while some iterations of Games award none, as is the case for all Pan American Games.
  4. "Medals section should include those events only, I am not even sure what you mean by what they will look like." — This is an assertion, baseless and without a clear reason where to draw the line.
  5. "Again there is no deadline, multiple editors can work to a common goal." — That is true, but you are missing the point. Even if a project like this is lunched, AFTER a consensus is reached, medal wont be removed — but moved to a new, newly designed section. We are not here to remove relevant, sourced information. We may organize it differently, but removing it because "I don't like it HERE" is pure vandalism. CLalgo (talk) 08:24, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1) There is no deadline to have this discussion or any implementation of what comes out of it.
2) You said I was blindly remove the grand slam section from the article in question, but that is not true (Ie ommitting facts). Each grand slam medal was sourced in the prose, where it should be.
3) I think you are confused or don't understand me. What I am trying to say is there is two types of competitions: World and Continental. For the world category: World Championships and Olympics are the top of the list, and for Continental that would be the continental championships. I think keeping the infobox as short as possible is important as per User:Lee Vilenski. The only reason I suggest continental multi=sport games is they are held every 4 years and won't clog up the infobox.
4) I am asking you what the section should look like.
5) I think they should be removed from the infobox entirely and sourced in the prose or a section in the prose. There is 0 reasoning to have World Series/Slam etc. events in the infobox imo. Please list why you think they should be included, keeping in mind no other sport lists regular World Series events in infoboxes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan 1234:
  1. There is no deadline to have this discussion or any implementation of what comes out of it. — That is true for every discussion. Lets leave this point.
  2. You said I was blindly remove the grand slam section from the article in question, but that is not true (Ie ommitting facts). Each grand slam medal was sourced in the prose, where it should be. — The fact that a medal is in the prose, which is good, doesn't mean it shouldn't appear in the medal table – if one exists.
    1. I think you are confused or don't understand me. — That is true.
    2. ...there is two types of competitions: World and Continental. For the world category: World Championships and Olympics are the top of the list, and for Continental that would be the continental championships. — Actually, the World Masters is an annual world class competition, considered of no lesser quality the the World Championships or the Olympic Games. The Grand Slams are also worldly events, ranked higher by the International Judo Federation then the continental championships that ranked on par with the Grand Prix, so I do understand you more now, but still think that if the continental medals are visualized, which they should, than the World Tour must too.
  3. I am asking you what the section should look like. — This is not an answer I can draw from the top of my head. It was your suggestion that one would be created instead of the current infobox medal table. My instinct says to build on the basis of something like Sagi Muki's Titles section. I like its order, sortability and available references. Maybe dates could be added too, and perhaps non-medal results, such as in tennis' Roger Federer Career statistics section.
    1. keeping in mind no other sport lists regular World Series events in infoboxes. — First, I do not know that. If anyone got a contradicting example, please link to it in a comment.
    2. I think they should be removed from the infobox entirely and sourced in the prose or a section in the prose. There is 0 reasoning to have World Series/Slam etc. events in the infobox imo. — Having information in prose doesn't mean it should be also organized in a table. This is true for tennis, as shown above, for other martial arts such as MMA, boxing, kickboxing and more that list the entire record of the athlete in a table and many other sports that list the subject's achievements in various competitions in table form. I'm willing to concede that maybe some medals shouldn't be in the heading infobox, but there is no reason what so ever not to have them – organized – somewhere else in the article.
Meanwhile, judoka articles should keep the current, common structure, until a different one will be agreed on. CLalgo (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, can we just calm down a little? It all boils down to if we think it's suitable to have medals won at international tournaments in the infobox. Personally, I try my best to shorten infoboxes wherever possible. They are in articles to give a short overview of key facts, and whilst this is certainly suitable for major things about a person, such as winning a world title, does winning a bronze in a continental championship really fit this? I'd be against having such events included in infoboxes, but am aware that we even have things such as the World Games in certain BLPs. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Infobox athletic conference

Template:Infobox athletic conference has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox sports league. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grass as a surface in sports venues

A question about the linking of "grass" in sports contexts (mostly within infobox fields) is being discussed at Template talk:Infobox venue#Grass as a surface in sports venues. There are around a thousand articles affected. – Uanfala (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball & Football

Should Federal League teams/records be in the 1914 Major League Baseball season & the 1915 Major League Baseball season pages? See RFC at WP:BASEBALL. Also are AFL teams included in the 1960 to 1969 NFL season pages? GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox guidelines

While working on lists of notable people connected to cities and schools, I have expanded sports biographical articles or at least taken them beyond the stub level. I have also created an infobox if needed. Several times, my infobox work has been criticized. For example, I didn't know that sports infoboxes are the one place in Wikipedia where abbreviation are standard, and I didn't know that minor league teams are not listed in the infobox. I am not a sports person, but want to get this right because so many that I come across need sources and cleanup. Where can I find the standard guidelines for sports infoboxes. And also, if their only pro team is in the minor leagues, does that mean their infobox is empty? What about players who are more famous for college play than the pros? Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]