Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Curling/Archive 3

"Red links list" for "Curlers by nationality" category created
"Red links list" WikiProject_Curling/Curlers_by_nationality_(red_links) created. This is "red links list" for category Category:Curlers by nationality and it's subcategories.

It's similar like WikiProject Curling/Curling (red links) (for Category:Curling) - but this one is for Category:Curlers by nationality (all curlers are in this category). It creates by MissingTopic tool too. Contains "red links" (to not existed yet articles - not only "curling related", but sometimes to article about any city etc.) somewhere in articles in this category and it's subcategories. Such "more short red links list" is helpful for me in ru-Wiki for work (article about what curler is "most wanted" in articles about other curlers? and so on).

Enjoy! -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Expanding assessment quality options
I've tweaked the WikiProject banner and assessment system to allow expanded quality (class) options. In addition to the pre-existing FL, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, List, and NA classes we can now tag pages as Category, Disambig, Draft, File, Project and Template. Previously all these pages were grouped under 'NA'. I especially think this will help us keep track of Draft pages, which I would encourage everyone to look at and help develop if they can!

I will use AWB to quickly re-class the bulk of the appropriate pages when I have a chance.

A202985 (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 World Junior Curling Championships
There seems to be some bs reporting on the qualification for the women's tournament by the WCF. They state that five countries qualified from last year's championship, the hosts, and four qualified from the 'B' championships. Defending champion China did not qualify? They point to four significant stories about qualification without explaining why China is not there and Hungary is. Ridiculous. Enough commentary I guess, does anyone have a link to a story that explains what happened. Likely Corona Virus related, but should be explained.18abruce (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Good question! You're probably right, but it's entirely speculation unless someone does a news story about it. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * By the way - why for match results (for "Draw 1" and others) used "table", not "standard" template Curlingbox? -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 04:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The article was created in Draft by a new user, and I didn't bother to change the scores to the appropriate template. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

List of curlers with Grand Slam/stats tables?
Would it be useful to create a list of curlers (just somewhere on this WikiProject page or something) with the Grand Slam table on their pages? Often after Slams the skips have their tables updated but sometimes non-skips have tables and they don't always get updated. Same goes for stats tables — I'm pretty sure the active curlers with stats tables are Rachel Homan, Kaitlyn Lawes, Casey Scheidegger, and Brendan Bottcher, but there's also potential to create more. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 15:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that sounds like it could be a helpful list, I would say it probably fits best in WP:CURLING/TODO A202985 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I’ll start a list when I have time, and anyone can add to it as needed. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've compiled lists for curlers with stats tables here and Grand Slam tables here. I've tried to get them all, but anyone can add to the lists if I've missed any! Some of the Grand Slam tables do need to be updated as well. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Cancelled Grand Slams
Since the Grand Slam of Curling cancelled the remaining two events of the 2019–20 season, anyone think it's a good idea to add a "CA" to the Template:Curling GS key with note "Event cancelled"? Thanks! TracyFleuryFan (talk) 20:14, March 14, 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that "N/A" would be sufficient. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * @Earl Andrew I was too but it's not like they weren't planning on doing it. The event was on the schedule and they were forced to cancel due to this crazy outbreak. Just a thought though. TracyFleuryFan (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC) TracyFleuryFan (talk) 00:31, March 15, 2020 (UTC)

New template "WWhCC" created
I created new template WWhCC - similar as WMCC but for links to any World Wheelchair Championship. Enjoy! -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discord
Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration for a Good Article?
Would we ever want to collaborate and try to get another curling-related article promoted to GA status? We have a few B-class articles right now. Just a thought. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * May be a good idea now that we should all have a lot more free time (and fewer curling articles to update). -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Scotties Tournament of Hearts seems like an important one, and John Morris, Rachel Homan, and Jennifer Jones have a lot of information — mostly need more references. Depends on how much we would need to add. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of working together to give one (or more if it works out!) of these articles a nudge into GA status, I'll help out. Any of those suggestions sound fine to me. A202985 (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started adding some more references to Rachel Homan, and I can add more when I have time. (I just chose her on the basis that I figured it'll be easier to find references for her junior career since it's more recent than the others, and she also has a stats table which is nice to have. If we want to do another article that's completely fine with me :)) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I've fully cited Rachel Homan's article to the best of my abilities, although there are still a few events in the stats table that I can't find any online references for (2003 Ontario Bantam Mixed, 2007, 2009, and 2010 Ontario Juniors; 2009 Pre-Trials, 2012 Ontario Mixed, and 2012 Canadian Mixed). I'll keep looking, but if anyone finds anything, that would be great because we need to cite those before nominating :) I'm also probably going to go in and double-check and rewrite for NPOV (mostly words to watch). The lead section also seems a little bit short right now, but I'm also not really sure what else there is to say. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can help out, but in the meantime, you will probably be able to find everything at the Internet Archive.-- Earl Andrew - talk 04:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of rewording and finished finding references for everything except for the 2012 Ontario Mixed (which has a page, but not results on the Internet Archive that I can find). That's the main thing but other than that I think it's in pretty good shape. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No luck searching at newspapers.com either. I've made an appeal to the project's Facebook group, maybe someone there can help.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed the record for now, since everything else about the event can be referenced. If we end up finding a source for the record, we can add it back, but for now I've submitted the nomination :) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your hard work! -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work on this article and everything curling on Wikipedia over the years! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

The GA review has begun! I'll be monitoring comments and working on fixes along the way, but I thought I'd let you all know in case you want to help out :) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Rachel Homan to GA!
We did it! Huge thanks to Earl Andrew for all your hard work on this article over the years and fact-checking with your Ottawa expertise :) and also A202985 for helping out! The main thing that came out of the review has to do with the consistency between all curlers' team tables — bolding and overlinking were the main issues from the review. Do we want to reassess our criteria and perhaps un-bold and de-link? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yay! Good job. Thanks for doing this. We should definitely take a look at redoing some of the criteria, especially if we want to elevate more articles to good articles. (Interestingly, some of those issues were not brought up when Kevin Martin (curler) was elevated to GA status). -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that too, but I suppose they've also gotten a bit stricter on following WP:MOS. I would support de-linking; since we're not supposed to overlink in prose, and you'd had to find the first link to click on it, I think the same should go for the team tables and it wouldn't be a huge hassle to try to find the first link. I kind of like the bolding because it makes it easier to see the position in the lineup, but then again, there are only 4 people in the lineup so I'd also support un-bolding because it's not that hard to look at 4 people and find one. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Congrats with GA. But (for me) wide column "Notes" in the middle of table line looks terrible. And it's not interesting work (for me again as a reader of article) to find "link to Lisa Weagle in long-long Teams table" (and haven't choice to click on link to Lisa in line "2019–20"). Only my opinion as reader. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think the “Notes” column is wide because, well, it has to fit all the notes. How would you want to change it? I don’t see any easy adjustments. As to links in team tables, of course it’s slightly more convenient to have all the links, but WP:NOTLINK and MOS:OVERLINK do clearly state that we shouldn’t be overlinking in the team tables regardless, and if our goal is to improve curling articles in general, I think complying with WP:MOS is the way to go. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Great job pushing the article to GA Allthegoldmedals! You did a huge amount of work and it is appreciated. For the duplicate linking in the teams tables, MOS:REPEATLINK says "...but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables..." and "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." So I think we need to decide if the teams table is meant to be read from top to bottom or more meant to be a reference to look up a specific year's team, and whether the duplicate linking significantly aids the reader. I was thinking about this before but didn't want to risk derailing your GA review by discussing it with the reviewer. Overall I wholeheartedly agree that we should strive to comply with the manual of style more in our curling articles, even if I feel like the teams tables are better with the bolding and duplicate linking. A202985 (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, I suppose I had interpreted "a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables..." to mean that a link could be repeated in a table if it was already in the prose, but you could also interpret it to mean that a link could be repeated multiple times in the table (in fact, I think that's what happens when a table is sortable, so your interpretation is probably more accurate than mine). To me, I've always read the team table from top to bottom (as if to see how the team changed over time), but it can be used both ways. Whether duplicate linking significantly aids the reader, though, I'm not entirely sure. It's definitely a bit of a help, but in my opinion, searching for the link in the team table is equally as difficult, if not even less difficult, than searching for the first link to a certain article within the prose. (And by un-linking, we'll be left with fewer links in the table, so it would be a bit easier to look for the right one, and to be honest, I think it even looks less overwhelming without duplicate links.) I think we sometimes used to merge cells if a team sticks together, but it could get messy (and complicated if certain players stick together but not all, or if a team gets back together), and I think it's still a bit easier to have separate cells for each season. Overall, I do agree that the duplicate linking might help a bit, but no more than duplicate linking in the prose, which shouldn't be done anyway, so I'm still leaning towards not duplicate linking. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Wanted to bring this back up to see if anyone else has opinions... a) bolding in team tables: so far it seems like we’re leaning towards no, since it’s against the manual of style and doesn’t help too much. b) duplicate linking in team tables. Ultimately, this comes down to whether it significantly aids the reader. Personally, I don’t think it’s significant enough and so I’d support removing duplicate links, but more opinions would be telling. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should make the change to follow the manual of style. From now on, I'll try to remember to make this change. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Krista McCarville GA nomination
I'm thinking of putting Krista McCarville up for GA nomination; I've worked on expanding and referencing and I'll probably do some copyediting and maybe nominate it in a few days. If anyone sees any glaring issues feel free to fix or let me know and I'll make the appropriate changes :) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Awesome, at quick glance it looks really good already just noticed a few things. 1) Refs need some cleaning, en dashes to em dashes in titles and dates all in same format (I maybe will have time later today to help with this but not sure). 2) A picture would be really good, doesn't seem to be any available on wikipedia commons (just did a quick search though) but maybe a free use one can be found elsewhere. 3) This article formats the career part differently than Rachel Homan (multiple sections vs one large career section divided up by sub-headings) – do you, or anyone else, know if there is a WP:MOS argument for one over the other? I'm guessing either is acceptable but haven't ever dug into guidelines on sectioning. I think it would be nice to be consistent over curling bio articles; personally, my preference would be one large section broken up by subheadings.A202985 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for all your work updating formatting of teams tables!A202985 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Yep, I did a bit of cleanup as I was expanding but haven't gone through it thoroughly yet. Technically, consistent ref formatting isn't one of the GA criteria (only FA) but it'll probably be brought up anyway. 2) You're right, I can't find any pictures on Commons or Google, but I'll keep looking or perhaps we'll find someone who has taken a picture themselves and is willing to upload it. It would definitely be nice, but not mandatory so it's not the end of the world if we don't find one. 3) I didn't notice that, you're right, they're different. I've done a quick read-through of all the guidelines on sectioning that I could find quickly, and it doesn't seem like it necessarily matters one way or the other. With Rachel Homan, it seems her career was split up into several sections within the larger career section because obviously one large section for her whole career is way too long. With Krista McCarville, her career was more definitively split up into sections (with taking a few years off and all) but it would still work either way. I agree that consistency is important, so I've changed it to the subheadings, although now it's pretty apparent that the junior career section is much shorter than the following two sections. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

CurlingZone/World Curling Tour URLs
Since CurlingZone is no longer going to be managing the World Curling Tour website, I'm concerned that the CZ website and old WCT website might be going down. Going to any CZ/WCT links leads to a "privacy error" for me, saying that the security certificate has expired. I'm wondering if there's a bot that might be able to archive all CZ/WCT URLs, because we have a lot of references from CZ/WCT. I tried playing with InternetArchiveBot, but it added an archive URL to all web references, which I suppose is better than not having an archive URL, but I feel like there should be a way just to archive the URLs and not have them added to all refs. I've been manually archiving some, too, but obviously that takes a while. If anyone has any ideas, that would be great; otherwise, I think running IABot is the best way to save our refs. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that too. I was going to take a "wait and see" approach to see if they'll be back in the Fall, or if the new WCT site will have player profiles. I sincerely doubt (hope not) that CZ will just dump all that valuable information out the window. But, if push comes to shove, we'll need a bot for sure. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's possible that the new WCT site will have player profiles, but I'm doubtful that CZ's information on non-WCT events (provincials, juniors, etc.) and even just old WCT/Grand Slam events will all be kept. In my opinion, it's better to be safe than sorry, and if CZ really does go down permanently, I think it'll be sooner rather than later. Do you think we should just run IABot on pages with CZ/WCT refs? I would hate for CZ to suddenly go down and lose all that information. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Bad news... I just tried to save a CZ URL on the Wayback Machine and it didn't work because of the security error. Not really sure what to do except hope CZ comes back? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * CZ is back up for me, so I'll be manually saving as many pages as I can. I've started a list of pages with all CZ/WCT references archived here. The easiest way to manually archive is by keeping the following code in a bookmark in your browser, and going to the reference URLs and clicking on the bookmark:  I'll be doing as many as I can, but it would be great if others could help out! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was a little stressed about this — I emailed Gerry Geurts and he says CurlingZone is going nowhere; it'll still be involved with the WCF, so our references will be fine :) I think it's generally good to archive URLs when we add them, though, just to be sure, so I'll probably do that when I add new references. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh great, thanks for reaching out to him! -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

What is "SO" in standings table?
Shout Out? Significant Other? The abbreviation is often used in Players' Championship season articles. I expect to see its meaning in "tournament format" but it is neither mentioned there nor in Glossary of curling.

Try using abbr to at least guide readers who might be interested in this sport... or to anyone who are just passing by. – McVahl (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually have no idea and have been meaning to bring this up. Does anyone else know? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It means "shootout" and is used as a tiebreaker in grand slam events. I believe it works like the Draw Shot Challenge at world events. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

2020–21 WCT teams
First of all, thanks to TracyFleuryFan for creating List of teams on the 2020–21 World Curling Tour; I was thinking of starting it so a nice surprise to see it already created :) I noticed that the teams listed so far are on CurlingZone, but now that CZ doesn't manage WCT, the CZ teams pages don't mention anywhere that those are the teams on the WCT — they're actually the teams for the WCF rankings (per ). They've been the same in the past, but now that WCT points/rankings are irrelevant to WCF rankings, I wonder if we'll see differences now. I can't see any teams lists on the WCT website. I suppose we'll have to wait and see, but just a thought that WCT/WCF events/rankings might be a bit different this season (fingers crossed that there will be a season). Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Category "Wheelchair curlers"
What do you think about adding category "Wheelchair curlers"? It may be useful I think (because wheelchair curling is a "little different curling" I mean ;) ). German, Norwegian, Russian, Poland wikis have it. For exampe, look at Norwegian no:Kategori:Rullestolcurlingspillere (they have subcategories for countries too). Eng-Wiki has some categories for number of "disabeled sportspeople by sport" (Category:Wheelchair basketball players etc). -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds useful to me, it would make sense to have that. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made it (used as example "Category:Wheelchair basketball players"), here Category:Wheelchair curlers. For example created Category:American wheelchair curlers (without separation to men and women) and add 6 persons (maybe not all exists in En-Wiki). -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 01:57, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Krista McCarville GA Review
In case anyone wants to help out, a reviewer has picked up the Krista McCarville GA nom here; I have a feeling there'll be more things to fix than the Rachel Homan one. I'll be monitoring it and responding to the feedback when I can find the time. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Template CZevent
I created CZevent - redirect to WCTevent. Maybe change "main name" to "CZevent" (and change "WCTevent" as redirect)? -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bot to change worldcurl.com URLs to curlingzone.com
Now that it appears that there's nothing left of worldcurl.com, would it make sense to request a bot at WP:URLREQ? I changed some manually a while back but given the number of URLs on a page like 2019–20 curling season, I think it would be much easier to figure out the exact patterns to convert from worldcurl.com to curlingzone.com URLs and request those changes. We might also need a bot to remove/replace the worldcurl template with the curlingzone template. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Additionally it needed to change link in template Sports links (it get data from Wikidata's "World Curling Tour ID") from WCT-profile to CZ-profile. Because now we have (if we used very useful "Sports links" in "External links in botoom of article) unworked (from yesterday as I can see) link to WCT profile (and need to add template Curlingzone after "sports links"). -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes that would be a good idea. I added all the sources to the 2019–20 curling season as the season was ongoing and they are all linked to World Curling Tour that doesn’t exist anymore. I went through and changed some of them manually on certain pages but I think it would be useful for it to be automatic! TracyFleuryFan (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm a little busy irl but I can try to figure out the exact URL and template changes needed and hopefully get those changes within the next few weeks! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Something I've realized and want to confirm — some curlers' articles have Sports links displaying the external links for WCF and WCT (and CurlingZone separately), while others have WCT displaying the links for WCT and CurlingZone (and WCF separately, if applicable). Regardless, we're going to have to remove WCT from Sports links, and likely add CurlingZone. This means that Sports links would then display both links we need (WCF and CurlingZone), instead of having to use both WCF and CurlingZone. Would it make sense, then, to add Sports links to every curler's page, and remove any other external link template (i.e. no longer have WCF, WCT, or CurlingZone), so that every curler's page just has Sports links? If so, this requires 2 steps: 1. Changing the code for Sports links by removing the WCT link and adding the CurlingZone link and 2. Removing all occurrences of WCF, WCT, and CurlingZone, and adding/leaving only Sports links (likely through WP:AWBREQ). This seems to be the easiest, most concise (code-wise), and most standard solution. Wanted to check to make sure no one sees any issues/objects to this, though. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "As I can see, this plan is exactly good solution. Confirm. Try to stay alive." (c)Houston :) (for my newly created or edited articles about players - from today I'll add to it only "sports links" temlate, no separately "curlingzone", and add - of course - player's CZ-ID to Wikidata if it exists in CZ) -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The switch from worldcurl.com to curlingzone.com is done, seems overall pretty successful. I've found several cases where the CZ URL doesn't have the same info, so I'll be trying to fix those over the next few days. After I finish that, I'll try to figure out the template change :) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * One difference between WCF/CurlingZone and Sports links is that Sports links relies solely on wikidata (as far as I know) while WF/CZ can pull from wikidata but can also have the id number manually added. I still agree that we should switch over to Sports links, it just adds the wrinkle that we have to make sure that all the pages that we switch templates on have the appropriate wikidata. I have AWB privileges so can work on switching templates soon, definitely faster than doing it manually. A202985 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I already went through Category:World Curling Federation template with ID not in Wikidata and Category:World Curling Tour template with ID not in Wikidata and added missing Wikidata, so all the pages that we switch templates on should have the appropriate Wikidata, unless I've missed anything. We just have to make sure that we also add to Wikidata for new pages that we create. I did put out a request for template switching at WP:AWBREQ and there hasn't been a response yet, but if you're able to, that would be great! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Someone at WP:AWBREQ pointed out that since there are so many pages to change templates on, WP:BOTREQ might be better than AWB. What do you think? It does seem like a lot of work to do manually. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After doing some changes yesterday and digging into what will be involved, I agree that asking for help at WP:BOTREQ is the way to go. I removed redundant CZ templates from pages that already had the Sports links template yesterday and that alone was ~400 pages. Replacing WCF/WCT/etc with sports links is going to be more like 1700+ pages and is complicated enough that it would take me a long time to figure out the best way to do it (I'm a novice with AWB and don't have a ton of free time right now). A202985 (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not just WCF, WCT, and CurlingZone, Sports links will also make templates like SR/Olympics profile, IOC profile, COC profile, USOPC profile, Olympedia, Olympic Channel, and potentially more redundant as well (assuming the IDs are in wikidata!). Looking through Category:Wikipedia categories tracking data not in Wikidata I think there are maintenance categories tracking most of those templates so I will start going through them checking for curlers to try to head off issues. A202985 (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan, I can also help check those tracking categories, and I can put out the request once we've got them all. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Only a few pages in those tracking categories, I checked through IOC, COC, SR/Olympics, Olympedia, and Olympic Channel, no curlers in any of them. Created the USOPC tracking category and no issues there either. A202985 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice! Just want to confirm exactly what we should request, then — we have to check all pages that use WCF, WCT, and CurlingZone; remove those templates in the external links section, along with SR/Olympics profile, IOC profile, COC profile, USOPC profile, Olympedia, and Olympic Channel; and add Sports links if it's not already there. Is there anything I've missed or should rephrase to make more clear? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think you've got everything. The only thing I'd maybe suggest is to explain the reasoning a bit more, that we're planning on using sports links going forward and would like to replace the old templates on existing pages and that makes all the rest of the listed templates redundant. Or something like that. Thanks for leading all of this! A202985 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, the request is here! Hoping it works this time :) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you know about some curlers have two WCF, CZ, IOC or Paralympic profiles (because of mistakes in databases)? For example, Henrik Harlev Petersen (two WCF-profiles: first - for WWhCC-2002, second - for 3 WWhCC qualifications). Or Mia Boman has two WCF-profiles (first as coach Mia Boman, second as curler Maria "Mia" Zackrisson). It will be bad to lost data in "second profiles" I mean. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that, but it looks like Sports links still works to show both profiles in those two examples. Are there any that you know of where Sports links doesn't work for that? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No I don't yet but I'll looking for more accurately. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I've seen Sports links has shown both profiles when there are multiple profile IDs in wikidata. The one small issue I've noticed is sports links doesn't seem to take the 'named as' qualifier in wikidata into account, so it doesn't show that the links are under different names (as in, one of Mia Boman's WCF profiles is listed under Mia Boman while the other is Maria "Mia" Zackrisson, but sports links lists both links as Mia Boman). But that is more cosmetic than functional, and can be fixed later by changing sports links. I am using AWB to quickly go through and identify pages that use WCF multiple times to make sure that both profile IDs are in wikidata, I can do it with the other templates too. A202985 (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we want to follow up about this bot request? I know there was a concern that sports links, when preceded by the bullet, might be generating an empty list item. I'm no HTML genius, but I'm pretty sure although this isn't optimal, it isn't catastrophic, and it could probably be changed on the template side so that it doesn't have to be preceded by the bullet for the first item to be part of the list. Besides, our main issue with the external links right now is that a whole bunch of them are dead links, and I feel like that's a more important issue to solve (correct me if I'm wrong). Allthegoldmedals (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about that coding issue with sports links, like you said that's something that can be fixed on the template side and is a minor thing to begin with. I'm a little more concerned with the wikidata vandalism risk brought up below, less because of the actual risk of vandalism than the risk of people on here deciding that the use of wikidata is bad and us having to change back to templates that accept ID parameters (and thus having to do the ID parameters by hand for all curlers). But overall I would say yes we should continue trying to get someone to use a bot to make the switch to sports links. A202985 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; I'm not really concerned about the actual risk of vandalism, but the bigger concern is other people opposing the use of Wikidata. However, tons of external links templates that are used on Wikipedia rely on Wikidata (nearly 6000 articles use sports links, and most of them aren't curlers, either). A lot of curlers' articles also use the WCT and/or WCF templates without ID parameters and just use Wikidata, too... which would still take forever to change to accept ID parameters. I'll probably give this a few more days, in case anyone comes up with any other concerns, then I'll follow up with the bot request. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Given the problems with WikiData (WP:SHORTDESC springs to mind) should we really be relying on WikiData given vandalism there is never detected nor reverted ?, Ofcourse no one may ever vandalise these but given the issues with the site I sort of feel everything should be done via EN so any vandalism that occurs would be easily detected and reverted, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 21:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that, too, but the vast majority of our use of WCT, WCF, and CurlingZone already relied on Wikidata (only a handful of articles had the ID as a parameter; almost all pulled them straight from Wikidata). Regardless, Wikidata will be involved, and I think sports links is still the best way to standardize our templates. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a an option to not use WikiData if we want. We could use WCF and CurlingZone and always specify an ID parameter instead of allowing it to pull it from WikiData. It would take a lot of work to do that though, I think adding the ID numbers would have to be all manual. I think we should also consider that the worst effect that WikiData vandalism can have on any of these templates is directing the link to the wrong/invalid profile. That would be annoying and very hard to catch, but I don't see any way vandalism on WikiData could insert vulgarities or anything like that into the pages here through these templates. (Further up I had suggested changing Sports links to use the "named as" qualifier from WikiData, I guess that would open up some more risk to vandalism on WikiData.) A202985 (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, though I really don't think it's worth our time/effort to add ID parameters manually. I think the risk of Wikidata vandalism is really quite low, and as you said, the worst potential effect isn't the end of the world. Given this, I don't see any reason not to continue with our change to sports links, but if anyone disagrees, we can cancel the bot request. I liked the idea of changing sports links to use "named as", but that's probably a consultation with other WikiProjects as well, and a risk we'd have to consider. (At least not something we have to deal with right now.) Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

2019 Champions Cup listed at Requested moves
A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2019 Champions Cup to be moved to 2019 Humpty's Champions Cup. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Notification regarding requested move closure
Hi, I've recently made this closure at requested moves which may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. Thanks,  SITH   (talk)   18:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Only notice
Yesterday I created article Leonid Rivkind, who played for Russia and (later) Israel. Today I saw that. OK. It's great. I'll stop adding articles about curlers - because I'm "only stupid Russian". No apologies or explanations required. I'll stop it. (Maybe) Rus-Wiki needs more my efforts I mean. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, the stuff you write is going to be edited and improved by others. When another editor shows me a better way (or more correct way) of doing something I take that as a learning opportunity and an opportunity to improve my editing going forward. I encourage you to do the same. If you disagree with that edit then discuss it on that article's talk page and give reasons why you disagree, especially if you can reference wikipedia guidelines that agree with you. A202985 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you took personal offence to my edit, but please know that it has nothing to do with you—we're all trying to improve Wikipedia together. I truly do appreciate your hard work creating articles, and we all have different strengths and limitations. For example, I don't always have a lot of time to edit, so I focus less on creating new articles and more on making small improvements to already-existing articles. But just because you created an article doesn't mean you WP:OWN it; everyone has the right to edit it. We should also respect each other's opinions—I happen to care a lot about accessibility (WP:ACCESS), because I believe everyone should be able to access the information on Wikipedia. If you disagree with anyone's edits, you can discuss with them, and chances are, they'll be willing to hear your perspective. I know I certainly am. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

WikiConference North America
Hey all!

I am planning on having a WikiConference North America sports panel December 12 3:00 EST. This is something that has never been done before and there are many sports which are "native" to North America and part of the America identity. What it seems to be is that we (you, me, and other members of WikiSports) will be in a Zoom (or other video conferencing app) to discuss our experiences in editing sports on Wikipedia. These can range from combating vandalism to how to best get permission to use sports photos. The organizers of WikiConference North America (WCNA) created an Etherpad surrounding planning which I will link here. if you Command F "sports" you will find the section. This will be the very first panel WCNA has ever had on sports so not much to go off of here.

Please ping me if you have questions as this page is not on my watchlist. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MCA Bonspiel
Curl Manitoba recently published this about the MCA Bonspiel, with a link to a list of all the past champions. I have no idea if all this is newly published information or if it was always available, but I thought I'd share in case anyone's interested in expanding the article. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Scotties/Brier colour contrast issues
MOS:COLOR has more detailed/quantitative information, but looking at 2021 Tim Hortons Brier and 2021 Scotties Tournament of Hearts (and previous years, I suppose), I'm worried that we have some major colour contrast issues. Specifically, the Brier wild card team colours definitely aren't colour-compliant, and a few others bring up concerns. I ran a colour contrast check here, and Alberta and WC fail both WCAG 2 AA and AAA, while NL, PEI, and Yukon fail WCAG 2 AAA. I think we should change these, definitely at least the WC and Alberta colours. I know there are a few light blues already, but I'm sure Alberta's blue could be lightened, and WC could really be any light grey that's not identical to NWT. Thoughts? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wildcard colours will definitely have to be changed, since they're all the same right now anyway. I was planning on waiting to see what colours the teams will be wearing first. If we made the Alberta font colour white (or maybe yellow), would that satisfy the colour contrast test? -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to change the 2021 wild card colours eventually. I've changed the 2020 Brier WC dark grey to the 2019 Brier/Scotties WC light grey. For Alberta, changing to white font or yellow font both pass WCAG 2 AA but not AAA. This white on darker blue passes AAA. I think I like this option best, even though it would take a tiny bit of extra work to change both the font colour and background colour. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the white on darker blue. Let's go with it! -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For the 2021 Brier and Scotties Wild Card teams I just left the colors for now as we don't know what color the jerseys will be. My thought with the Wild Card teams was that their banner color was the color of that teams jerseys at the event. Should we keep it this way or change all of the Wild Card colors to be the same? Thoughts? -- TracyFleuryFan (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think for 2021, we will need to use the jersey colours, since there are 3 different teams. Not sure what to do for previous years, but I'm partial to using jersey colours for those events as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the previous WC colours were white, black, or grey, so the current light grey works for most of them. The only exception is 2019 Scotties (Scheidegger), so we could change that to light orange. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that's probably the best option just using the jersey colors as the color for team WC. Whatever color the jerseys are I feel we can just change the text color to accommodate it. -- TracyFleuryFan (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed 2019 Scheidegger to orange, and 2018 and 2020 McEwen and 2018 Einarson to black (since we're changing colours anyway). Allthegoldmedals (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Scotties/Brier note formatting
I've been meaning ask for a while, but never got around to it. I just wanted to confirm consensus before changing the note formatting in the Scotties and Brier articles at some point. Currently, there's a notes section under the teams list (see 2020 Scotties Tournament of Hearts, for example), but since note is no longer recommended, I'm planning to change them to efn (used in Northern Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts and others). Is this ok with everyone? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with it.-- Earl Andrew - talk 00:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)
There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia(talk) 00:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Invitation template
Hey everyone, I created an invitation template and put a description/link under the WP:Curling Participant section. It seems like around Worlds and the Olympics the curling articles get a lot more editors and I think it would be worthwhile trying to convert some of them into regular WP:Curling participants! The more active editors we have the more effective we can be at our goal of expanding and improving curling coverage on Wikipedia. The syntax to use it is: ~. Please feel free to tweak the wording in the template itself or in the description on the main WP:Curling page if you think it can be improved!

I think it would also be worthwhile to have a welcome message template, to add to user's talk pages after they join. It could go into a little more detail about how they can get involved. If anyone wants to jump on this they are more than welcome to, otherwise I will get to it at some point. A202985 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fantastic idea! Good work. I'll have to remember to use it next time activity goes up (maybe around Women's worlds?) -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mixed doubles national championship medals in infoboxes
I've been having a discussion with User:Mosjöberg about whether or not medals won at mixed doubles national championships should go in infoboxes, as well as mixed team nationals. I'm on the fence about mixed doubles, as it's an Olympic discipline now, and we already have Canadian Trials winners getting their medals in their infoboxes (but not nationals), so it might make sense. Apparently some countries pick their national champions to go to the Olympics, so they are the equivalent of "Olympic Trials". I am opposed to putting national mixed team medallists in the infoboxes though. Mixed nationals are not as important as juniors, and we already decided to not include Canadian junior championship medals. Anyone else want to weigh in? -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Earl. My assumption has always been what should be decisive is what the WCF, the curlers, and national federations consider the top merits. The Olympics are not the controlling factors in what we list on Wikipedia. We don't, for example, list only the WCF events in Olympic years - we list the World Championships every year because they have long been more important than the Olympics. As for the Mixed Curling Championships, the WCF's decision to make it a World Curling Championship (since 2015) is important to its status in the sport. That said, that just means the sport is evolving, and neither the Olympics nor the Canadian model should be the decisive factor of what's important.

Many national federations don't have Olympic trials. They make their National Championships decisive as to who goes to the WCF events and Olympics. Scotland and Switzerland have done this for many years. Others consider it a very serious factor. The Swedish National Championship historically was decisive in the first decades of WCF events as to which Swedish team went, but for many years when two teams have been in sharp ranking contention, the Swedish federation tried to be more egalitarian and reserved the discretion to send the Elite Series winner to one WCF championship and the National Championship winner to WCF another. But it is more often than not decisive of who gets to the Championships we list on Wiki (WCC, ECC, etc.) The Canadian Olympic trials are every four years and could be said to have no relevance other than who gets to the Olympics but the silver and bronze medalists get listed on Wikipedia. National championships silver and bronze medals in smaller curling nations mean a lot to curlers in those nations.

Ultimately all the curlers pages are inconsistent because there are more curlers than Wiki editors and everyone does not have a fan updating their merits to standardize them all. But if the WCF, federations, and curlers consider these national and international merits significant milestones in curlers' careers, it seems fair that they are listed by those standards.Mosjöberg (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)MoSjoberg


 * Looking at MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should summarize key facts without excess information. Your opinion, by extension, is that "key facts" are "what the WCF, the curlers, and national federations consider the top merits." While this is often the case, the WCF, curlers, and national federations don't directly have anything to do with what Wikipedia considers to be "key facts". Wikipedia's coverage is based on WP:NPOV secondary sources. So while certain events, medals, etc. "mean a lot to curlers in those nations," this ultimately should not factor into what we include in infoboxes. This is not to say that we can't consider adding them in, but there needs to be evidence from multiple independent unbiased secondary news sources that across the board, these medals are "key facts". In my opinion, said "key facts" would represent what makes a curler notable. Per WP:NCURLING, winning certain Canadian championships presumes notability – this is based on evidence of independent secondary news coverage. Although winning other countries' championships might be considered significant milestones by the WCF, federations, and curlers, if they don't have the extent of news coverage as in Canada, those curlers are not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Whether a curler has a "fan updating their merits" is ultimately irrelevant. While many of us in this WikiProject are curling fans, the purpose of Wikipedia is to build neutral encyclopedic articles, not fanpages. I agree with  mixed team national medals should not be added, due to general lack of secondary coverage and notability. For now, I also oppose adding mixed doubles national medals, because while some countries' mixed doubles nationals may indeed warrant notability, not all will, and making such sweeping changes would lead to clutter and possibly more notability issues (which we've had to deal with already). If there are certain countries whose mixed doubles nationals exhibit significant secondary news coverage, I'd happily agree with adding them, on a case-by-case basis. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The Swedish Mixed Doubles Championship semifinal and final were just shown on national television in Sweden. https://www.svtplay.se/curling-sm. Secondary sources, including national papers and newspaper networks, regularly cover these events. Mosjöberg (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just curious, are any of these newspaper articles available online, or only in print? A quick Google search doesn't show much; then again, I'm searching from Canada and in English, not Swedish. I do believe you, because Sweden is one of the major non-Canadian curling countries, but Swedish Mixed Doubles Curling Championship is written entirely from primary sources, so I'm not even sure where to start looking. I would think that if we do end up adding national mixed doubles medals to infoboxes, it would be definitely Canada, and possibly Sweden, Switzerland, USA (?) and maybe others on a case-by-case basis. Thoughts from others? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You know what, on second thought, a case-by-case basis seems unnecessarily confusing. The debate is whether to add national mixed doubles medals or not. National men's and women's medals are already in infoboxes regardless of country, though all other nationals (junior, mixed, senior, etc) are not. I suppose the question is whether or not mixed doubles is as important as men's/women's, or if it's more on par with the other events (which still have world medals in infoboxes). I still lean towards excluding national mixed doubles medals, but like Earl, I see how the fact that it's an Olympic discipline changes things. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyone else want to weigh in on this, now that the mixed doubles nationals are upon us? I've noticed a few curlers have national MD medals in their infoboxes (e.g. Cory Christensen, Kadriana Sahaidak), while most don't. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, just seeing this discussion now. I think we should add mixed doubles national medals but not mixed national medals. As we've seen this year, the World Mixed Doubles Curling Championships are more important than ever as they will qualify the first MD teams for the 2022 Olympics. Mixed Doubles is getting more and more coverage as we lead into Beijing 2022 and I think the mixed doubles nationals are becoming more important as they have a huge impact on how their nation will qualify for the World Championship and, more importantly, the Olympics. For mixed, I don’t believe it gets enough coverage in the media to have national championship medals in the infoboxes, especially since it is often not an event the top curlers participate in. — TracyFleuryFan (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's fair. A lot of European curlers are notable primarily for mixed doubles but not for men's/women's, anyway. I'm cool with adding mixed doubles, but I agree we shouldn't add mixed. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone. I think we have a consensus now.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to chime in on this as well, but I'll just leave it as: I agree with the consensus that mixed doubles national medals should be added but not mixed national medals. Mixed doubles is quickly becoming on par with men's/women's (though it seems less so in Canada than elsewhere). A202985 (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just realized that for the Canadian mixed doubles championship, basically none of the medalling teams actually represented a "province", per se (i.e. CMDR qualifiers). How would that work in the infobox? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that is a problem for pretty much all medals except Olympics/Worlds/Brier/Scotties, I know at least in the US none of the championships are state-based. In the articles for US curlers it is handled very inconsistently, sometimes they're listed as 'Representing [state]' even though it's not an official representation and sometimes all the medals are under 'Representing the United States'. It would be good to have a consistent solution for this. A202985 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, IIRC this was also an issue with Olympic trials that was never resolved. I don't love saying "representing [province/state]" when it's not official. Would it possible just to include them under a section that doesn't have a representation? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately most infoboxes now have the curler's various member association in the medal tables, so they have to go under something to demarcate their medals. It might as well be their province of residence. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:49, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a way to separate some medals under 'Representing Canada' and then other medals under nothing, they'll all look like they're under 'Representing Canada'. Unless we rearranged the order, but I don't think that's the right way to handle this. I don't like the idea of saying 'Representing XXX' when it is unofficial, and I think it will be messy when people move around or teams are from multiple states/provinces, but I haven't really found a better option yet. A202985 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For the record, I noticed in the Canadian Mixed Doubles Championship Media Guide, they did list the province next to each of the winners. I feel like that's somewhat official. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:34, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair, but they still aren't "representing" that province in the sense that, well, provincial reps do. I also noticed on TSN that only provincial reps get flags next to their team name, and all other teams just get a curling rock graphic, so they're clearly making that distinction. I haven't found a better solution, but will keep thinking about it. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They're probably doing that because having two flags for some of the teams wouldn't fit in with their graphics. TSN makes their own graphics decisions, and we're not necessarily bound by them. For example, we use the NOCA flag for Northern Ontario, while TSN just uses Ontario's flag. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

In a somewhat related topic but separate from our ongoing discussion, I'm wondering if the team and mixed doubles medals should all be under one 'Curling' header in the medals table (as it predominantly is right now) or if it makes sense to divide them into 'Women's curling' and 'Mixed doubles curling'? A while ago, when I wasn't paying as close attention to guidelines and norms as I should've been, I went ahead and changed a few to split team vs mixed doubles medals, so you can see an example of it at Cory Christensen. I haven't been able to find anything relevant in the Manual of Style or anywhere else yet. I can see it either way: on one hand, they are both disciplines of curling, but on the other hand, it is different than, say, a runner earning medals for different distances. What do other people think?A202985 (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't even notice this, but now that I look at it, this definitely needs to be changed, if even just for accuracy. For example, Kaitlyn Lawes and Jocelyn Peterman have all medals, including mixed doubles, listed under "women's curling", which is obviously inaccurate. I'd be in favour of splitting into "women's curling" and "mixed doubles curling", but I'm ok with also just "curling" – just not how it is right now! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Anyone else have input on whether it would be better to generalize the medals tables to 'Curling' or split them into specific 'Men's/Women's curling' and 'Mixed doubles curling' sections? A202985 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we should make a decision on this and start making the necessary changes ASAP; I don't love leaving inaccuracies in the way we have it right now. Thoughts? I like splitting into men's/women's and mixed doubles, but if anyone would rather generalize into plain "curling", that's good (and easier) too. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I vote for splitting them into men's/women's and mixed doubles. Makes it easier to decipher and is more accurate. TracyFleuryFan (talk) 05:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed before, but the example in the WP:Curling guidelines on medals tables actually has it generalized to just 'curling'. But generally I support splitting them into respective disciplines. The one problem I have with splitting it into men's/women's and mixed doubles is that there isn't a place for medals from World Mixed Curling Championship. It could be solved by generalizing it to 4-person curling (I guess just called 'Curling'?) and 'Mixed doubles curling'. What do people think of that? I think wheelchair curling should be accounted for in our guidelines too, so altogether the medals table guidelines could be revised to:
 * Curling
 * Country
 * Olympic Games
 * World Championships
 * European Championships (ECC) / Pacific Championships (PCC) / Any future Pan-American Games event
 * World Junior Championships
 * World Senior Championships
 * World Mixed
 * World University Games (Winter Universiade)
 * Province/State
 * National Championships (including the Brier and the Hearts)
 * Olympic Trials
 * Canada Winter Games
 * Arctic Winter Games
 * Mixed doubles curling
 * Country
 * Olympic Games
 * World Mixed Doubles
 * Province/State
 * National Championships
 * Olympic Trials
 * Wheelchair curling
 * Country
 * Paralympics
 * World Championship

Sorry, I may be over complicating this but I'm trying to anticipate issues before we go changing hundreds of pages. -- A202985 (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * This looks good to me. The one issue I see in Canadian curling is with the national championships. Many curlers now switch provinces as the change teams or when they return as the national champion. Is it really necessary to say which province/territory they were competing for at the time? It only seems to make the lists unnecessarily longer. It would seem best to leave out which provincial/territory/national area they are representing.  Krazytea  (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a good consideration – the revised guidelines look good to me. I think including which member association they're representing is still pretty important, since at national championships they're not just representing their team (like in tour events), but also their member association. And there are often news articles that say things like "Team Alberta won the Brier", so even if players move around, they were clearly representing a member association at the time. Is there a standard for other sports? If in doubt, I would say sticking with what others do would generally be a good idea. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

A more consistent ordering of teams on scoreboards
I noticed what I consider inconsistent ordering of teams on scoreboards (i.e. who is top half and who is bottom half, and by extension, who is left side and who is right side in side-by-side comparisons).

For example, starting at around 2011 Continental Cup of Curling, North America is starting to be placed on the top half of the curling scoreboard for some reason. Articles for older events correctly put World on top, consistent with event policy (although they do put World on the right side in the side-by-side race points breakdown).

And yes, putting World on top of North America is an actual event policy. You can dig into the old media guides and find this explicitly stated. Here's a verbatim excerpt from the 2011 media guide:


 * Regardless of colour of stones, Team World’s score will always be shown on top of the scoreboard
 * and Team North America’s score will be shown on the bottom of the scoreboard

Now, it does look like by 2018, they changed the policy to say North America vs World instead, but that's besides the point: these events have a scoreboard ordering policy that they're following, whatever it may be at the time, and it seems that many Wikipedia articles are not respecting these policies.

For example, the 3v6 at 2021 World Women's, the article puts #3 Sweden on the top half of the scoreboard, and #6 Canada on the bottom half. This actually goes against WCF policy, which always lists team throwing stones with dark-colored handles first, and team throwing stones with light-colored handles second. In other words, a WCF-sanctioned game is always Red vs Yellow, never Yellow vs Red.

WCF Rule C8(a) makes it clear that this is the policy for round robin games, but I've since confirmed with WCF via e-mail that this is in fact the policy for ALL games.

This is why Jill Officer explicitly states in the broadcast "Canada versus Sweden in the 3 versus 6 qualifier". CAN is always on the top half of the scoreboard, and it's always on the left side of the screen for side-by-side comparison. This is also true for the official PDF report for the session.

When I edited the article to correct this inconsistency and switched the order to CAN vs SWE, it was reverted back to SWE vs CAN, hence why I reached out here to start a conversation about it.

I realize that it's tempting to put #3 Sweden above #6 Canada on the scoreboard in a 3v6 game, but that goes against WCF policy. Maybe we can debate whether or not we should follow WCF policy, or if we should just invent our own for Wikipedia, but surely the simplest solution is to just be consistent with the official policy of the events we're writing articles for, don't you think?

If WCF calls the 3v6 game CAN vs SWE in their official broadcast and in their official PDF report for the session, isn't that good enough reason to just call it CAN vs SWE in Wikipedia?

Note that Curling Canada also has a similar Red vs Yellow policy (never Yellow vs Red), although I haven't directly confirmed it with them (it's just based on observation at this point). So for the 1v2 game of 2020 Scotties, the Wikipedia article currently says it's #1:Manitoba (Einarson) vs #2:Wild Card (Jones), despite the fact that the official broadcast and the official session report calls this Wildcard vs Manitoba.

So, what do people think about this? I realize that it can be tricky to find out what the policies for the different events are, but can we just make it our policy on Wikipedia to always follow the original scoreboard order of the games we're writing articles for? We don't have to know what their policies are, we just have to be consistent with the official published reports and not reorder the scoreboards of major sanctioned events.

CurlingClips (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We should be doing whatever official sources are doing. But, I've never thought of it as being that much of a big deal. -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity, how do the current editors write the scoreboards onto articles? Is it written manually, or are there tools to automate entry by generating Wikipedia scoreboards from official reports from Curling Canada & WCF? -- CurlingClips (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's manual.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * So should I edit the guidelines to state the policy that we both agreed on (we should not reorder scoreboards and we should preserve original order as reported by sanctioning body), or should we wait until more people chime in? -- CurlingClips (talk) 01:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I don't understand what about this "holywar" ;) I just now look to WWCC-21 site on WCF to "Results - Qualification Games" (https://worldcurling.org/events/wwcc2021?pageType=results) and see order CAN vs SWE. I look to WCF results database, to WWCC-21 (http://results.worldcurling.org/Championship/Details/678), to "Quarterfinals" and see again order CAN vs SWE. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * CAN vs SWE is the correct order according to WCF, but the Wikipedia article had it as SWE vs CAN. I tried to fix it, but it was reverted by User:TracyFleuryFan, and the reasoning was "Doesn’t matter what color they were, goes in order of seeds. (Sweden was 3, Canada was 6)". So that's basically the 2 conflicting schools of thought. I believe our policy should be to use original official scoreboard order. Some other people believe that for a 3v6 game, it should be #3 vs #6, and never #6 vs #3. By that logic, they also think the 2021 World Women's final is SUI vs RCF, even though WCF says it's RCF vs SUI.


 * This problem is widespread in Wikipedia right now. Look at the 1v2 2020 Scotties example in my original post. Currently it's MB vs WC on Wikipedia, even though it's WC vs MB according to Curling Canada. -- CurlingClips (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I understand now! :) Of course, on playoff's bracket (top of "Playoffs" section) we must write (only for 1st round of playoffs, "Qualification games" in this case) as "3 vs 6" (SWE vs CAN in this case) - but on game's "end-by-end" template (Curlingbox) ("Qualification Games" subsection in this case) we must write in "red vs yellow" order (CAN vs SWE in this case). That's all folks! It's very simple for understanding I mean - tournament bracket is different thing then game description :) -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 08:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you got it! But remember, the Red vs Yellow order is actually secondary to the primary issue, which is that I think we should report games in the original scoreboard order as reported by sanctioning bodies. In many cases (Olympics, World Championships, Brier, Scotties, etc.), this does result in Red vs Yellow scoreboards, but really the goal is to just preserve the original scoreboard order and not flip things around based on editor's arbitrary preference.
 * If we all agree that this should be our policy, then I can add that in the guidelines, and then fix the 2021 World Women's final (RCF vs SUI), 2020 Scotties 1v2 (WC vs MB), etc. -- CurlingClips (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I don't think there's a Wikipedia policy that we have to follow the WCF guidelines. Rather, we should be following the most common ordering as reported by secondary sources, which could possibly be the seed order in question, but in general it'd probably follow the WCF reporting, so I do agree that following the WCF order is the easiest and most consistent way to go. However, I don't know how widespread this inconsistency is, and I don't think it's a big enough deal to invest tons of time and energy into. (Also, emailing the WCF would be WP:OR, so I don't know if we should create a whole guideline on the basis of that.) I'd agree that, moving forward, we should follow the WCF order. Not sure about changing all past articles, though. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 11:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that we should follow the ordering as reported by secondary sources, when we can just as easily follow the ordering as reported by the official primary sources, the sanctioning bodies themselves. Forget about the specifics of WCF's Red vs Yellow policy. Our policy should simply be, whatever game we're reporting, we preserve the original scoreboard order as reported by the sanctioning bodies. -- CurlingClips (talk) 11:57, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:PSTS, secondary sources should be used over primary sources. Wikipedia isn't a republishing of primary sources (i.e. WCF databases); it's an encyclopedia and tertiary source based primarily on secondary sources. Something as straightforward as scoreboard ordering would fall under WP:PRIMARY, so following the WCF order is justified here, but I'd caution against always blindly following WCF reporting, because we want to rely on primary sources as little as possible. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 13:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for educating me on how Wikipedia works! I'm a new editor, in case it wasn't already apparent, so I appreciate being corrected when mistaken. So let's make one thing clear here: how do editors update scoreboard on Wikipedia? Are they using CurlingZone.com instead of WorldCurling.org/curlit.com/watching livestreams/broadcast? Because CZ is the only source among those that says that 2021 World Women's final is SUI vs RCF. All the others made it clear that the final was RCF vs SUI. -- CurlingClips (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course! Your attention to detail in curling is remarkable and we're always looking for new editors :) I don't do a ton of scoreboard updating, but we do use CZ a lot in general, so I wouldn't be surprised. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * For my two cents, I would suggest that the spirit of WP:RETAIN as it applies to varieties of English would be a good model for this: Unless there is a universal standard for ordering (e.g. if the 1/2 winner were always listed first in a page playoff final, regardless of event) just leave things how they are. The only thing that matters is that the correct teams are listed, and that the correct result is shown. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 04:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've confirmed with World Curling Federation that all of their games are always Red vs Yellow, never Yellow vs Red, so I'd say that's universal standard for WCF events. There were some exceptions, e.g. old Continental Cup events where it was always World vs North America, but WCF no longer sanctions Continental Cup events. -- CurlingClips (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not even remotely what "universal" means. If it were universal, every competition would always list it red vs yellow. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 06:36, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think adding a bit of context to define what is universal in a meaningful way is appropriate. For a related example, according to Home (sports), it can be Home Team vs Away Team or the other way around depending on context, so it's not universal. But once the context is considered, there's definitely a wrong order and a right order.
 * Also, as far as exceptions go, Continental Cup is always going to stand out in the world of curling. There's nothing like it, so of course it's going to have its own rules and policies that is different from pretty much every other form of curling out there. If you consider only World championships and Olympics, for example, then yes, it's always going to be Red vs Yellow, no exceptions.
 * At the end of the day, though, I think it's better if we just not flip the scoreboards around from article to article. We should just follow the official scoreboard order as reported by the sanctioning bodies. If they say that a particular game is X vs Y, then we on Wikipedia should also report it as X vs Y.
 * In other words, when I said that I think we should be consistent, I wasn't really saying that we should always report games as Red vs Yellow. I'm saying that we should report games consistent with how it's reported by the sanctioning bodies. -- CurlingClips (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Imposing the "official" scoreboard order is using WP:Primary sources instead of WP:Secondary, and that is a problematic WP:OR issue. If you can show that media reports of these events always use the ordering that the event uses, then that would be something. But right now, you are trying to impose your own view of the "right" way of doing things, regardless of what reliable sources actually indicate. That is how editors get into WP:edit warring trouble on Wikipedia. If the ordering of teams is important, then reliable media will report it that way, and we should follow their lead. If reliable media do not report it that way, then all of your feelings, speculations, and important thoughts about how things should be is just original research, and Wikipedia isn't the place for it. So my serious advice is to let it go. If the results of the competition are shown accurately and clearly, then you absolutely should not change it. If you are writing an article on some competition, or editing in new results, by all means use whatever criteria you want. But until you have WP:reliable sources all agreeing that curling results need to be reported in one way, the imposition of any order on someone else's contribution is against Wikipedia policy. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 15:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's fair to accuse me of trying to impose my own view of what's right and wrong, when I'm merely saying that we shouldn't flip things upside down for no reason. Would you have made the same argument for Le Bateau, which was accidentally hung in a museum upside down for 47 days? That said, I will take your advice and drop the issue, since all it takes is for one reliable source to flip a single scoreboard upside down to open the flood gates for everyone else to do the same. -- CurlingClips (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It was not intended as an accusation, just a simple acknowledgement of what rules and conventions actually are on a functional level. And there's nothing wrong with imposing those conventions when they are justified by policy. But this whole conversation seems to be putting the desire for a convention before its justification in policy. If I were actively maintaining content on tournaments and championships, I would probably adopt your suggestion as a matter of course, because I agree with the reasoning. But that is a very different animal than actively changing content that has already been submitted by other editors, and that is where it runs afoul of how Wikipedia's core tenets demand we work. VanIsaac, MPLLcont WpWS 05:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If I can speculate, probably the reason why 2021 World Women's 3v6 game was reported as SWE vs CAN in Wikipedia was because of the real-time rapid editing nature of Wikipedia. As soon as the round robin ends and the playoff bracket was determined, editors quickly create empty scoreboard stubs, using seed ordering, because WCF probably would have to wait until stone handle color selection was made before they can officially declare scoreboard ordering. I'm not sure when WCF releases this information, but surely by the time the game starts, the official scoreboard ordering is known. My guess is that some editors would rather ignore the official scoreboard order if it conflicts with the empty scoreboard stubs, and that's how we got into this problem. This is all just pure speculation on my part, though, and is really not adding much to the conversation.

I think whenever an event has been completed and the sanctioning bodies have released their official reports, we should try to be consistent with the official reports. In fact, I think it would be great if our scoreboard can have a link to the official reports, and maybe eventually we can add some automation to verify that the article is consistent with the report, no typos, etc. -- CurlingClips (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The state of Curling
So what's the consensus on the state of Curling article on Wikipedia? Is it just me or do we agree that it is in very poor state at the moment? It's full of obsolete information and provable inaccuracies (e.g. "In international competition, each side is given 73 minutes to complete all of its throws.").

Are there plans to improve the article? I'd like to help, but I'm a newcomer as an editor to Wikipedia, so I'm far from being the most qualified person for the job, but I think something has to be done.

For what it's worth, one of my main interest is in documenting the timeline of rule changes in the sport (i.e. a list of what major changes were introduced when). I believe anything I write can be cross-referenced with WCF/Curling Canada rules, including historical ones using Wayback Machine. I did something similar for Doubles curling.

I'm not sure if something like that belongs in Wikipedia, or if it's a violation of WP:NOR, or too dependent on primary sources, etc., so I probably should get a permission first before embarking on such effort. -- CurlingClips (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that a lot of curling-related articles contain some outdated information, especially if they were created a while ago. We don't have a lot of editors so our combined time/energy simply isn't enough to constantly maintain every article. When it comes to obvious inaccuracies, be WP:BOLD! If no one else is making the necessary changes, go right ahead. We all know what it's like to be a new editor, we're all still learning, and we all still make mistakes! As for a timeline of rule changes, I know there are Wikipedia guidelines about the appropriate depth of content. (I just can't find them. WP:N and WP:ROC are a start.) As a rule of thumb, Wikipedia balances historical notability and avoids WP:RECENTISM, so if you can't find any secondary sources about a topic (especially if it's quite specific), it probably doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Don't worry about getting permission for editing – everyone's equally allowed to contribute, and being bold is how we improve Wikipedia! If you're ever unsure about something, though, you can always ask here. If there's something that doesn't pertain as much to this whole WikiProject, reach out and I'm happy to help. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think timeline of rule changes has recentism issue, precisely because it spans history. I think it's notable and relevant because some of it is already written in the article (e.g. the switch from 4 rock to 5 rock FGZ in 2018). I believe anything I'll write in that section can also be written as paragraphs in the article, but turning it into a list of dated one-liners just summarizes the information better. For sure there will be secondary sources reporting on rule changes, although I still prefer to link to the actual rulebooks stating what the rules are, rather than news reports adding their own interpretation that some rules have changed. -- CurlingClips (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, although I'd caution against relying much (or at all) on primary sources for references especially when secondary sources exist. I know you like using the rulebooks because they come straight from the source, but in terms of Wikipedia guidelines and conventions, WP:PSTS is a pretty big deal. Of course it's easier to use primary sources, but only secondary sources can establish notability and provide balanced and/or neutral information. For your personal use, there's nothing wrong with preferring primary sources, but summarizing the interpretations of various secondary sources is what Wikipedia is actually about. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Need to change links for Swedish curlers
Because few weeks ago Swedish Curling Association's site was change (structure and data), links for Swedish curlers to "Swedish male/female national curlers" lists don't work now (and I don't know is exists this useful lists on site for today or not). I mean links like (for Maria Hasselborg) those:

I changed (weeks ago) in Russian Wiki those links in curler's articles to web-archieved male/female lists as:
 * 1) for male curlers - add to begin of URL "http://web.archive.org/web/20200922202406/"
 * 2) for female curlers - add to begin or URL "https://web.archive.org/web/20190909173724/"

Need to change (by someone) the same in Ehg-Wiki I mean. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for asking again, but aren't there bots on Wikipedia that does these kinds of things? In other words, aren't there bots that scour Wikipedia on a schedule and detects broken links and modify links to archival copy from Wayback Machine automatically if/when needed? (Update: here's what I'm talking about User:InternetArchiveBot. I'm not sure what it actually does, but it sounds like it's close to what's needed) -- CurlingClips (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I'm not sure how frequently (if at all) IABot does checks. It's easy to run it manually, though – I'll get started, and if anyone wants to help, here's how: This search page contains all the pages with Swedish Curling Association URLs we might need to change, then to access the IABot Management Interface you login here, then go Run Bot --> Fix a single page (you can try queueing for multiple pages too) and then enter a page title and run. The other option if we don't want to run the bot manually is to request a bot job, which we did last year for worldcurl.com, but it's a fairly lengthy process and this might be faster. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: I think I messed up the search slightly, but I've now preliminarily checked both http://www.curling.se and https://www.curling.se/ links and ran the bot on the pages I found. I didn't find many, but did I miss any? Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't know how much - I only show to EngWiki "curling editors" a problem with "modified" site where needed biography info exists. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bad access to TeamUSA's curlers database
Strange thing... Today I tried to go to TeamUSA site through link (in "Extended links" section, used WikiData) "Joel Larway at United States Olympic & Paralympic Committee" ( https://www.teamusa.org/Athletes/LA/Joel-Larway ) in article "Joel Larway". Site answered: - - - - Access Denied You don't have permission to access "http://www.teamusa.org/General/ErrorPages/NotFound?" on this server. Reference #18.66392b17.1623767550.6bb2fc7d - - - - Modification of TeamUSA site (days or weeks ago? I just today see that "effect") crashed some of "old" links for US curlers. ((( -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

UPD: Page of Joel Larway from TeamUSA site exists on Web-archive, here - but I don't understand how to use those archieved links to Wikidata and are all "old" links for US curlers archieved or no (and we lost them forever)? Bad news I think... bad "site modification"... -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

UPD-2: For Doug Pottinger (for example) all works correct. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 06:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a wide problem with the database, I checked a handful of other profiles and the only other broken link that I found was for Jason Larway. I am guessing that Jason and Joel Larway must've been removed from the database for some reason, maybe the profiles get removed after a certain number of years? (They haven't competed at the Men's National Championship for 10 years now). USA Curling made a completely new website that has broken everything connected to the old usacurl.com but that is a separate problem, I don't think this Team USA database is connected to the USA Curling website. A202985 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

This is only a mildly related question, but since you mentioned WikiData, I'm going to ask it anyway. I'm new to Wikipedia as an editor. I noticed that Rachel Homan has a WikiData, but it's very incomplete (it only has Olympic appearances, no Scotties appearances). So after 2021, does a human manually update Rachel Homan infobox, adding 2021 appearance typing letter by letter, doing the math to increment from 7 to 8 appearances, adding the silver medal, etc? How much of any part of that process is automated? -- CurlingClips (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, none of that is automated. Basically the only automation is in the external links, as Alexey pointed out: Sports links pulls from Wikidata. (We also got a bot to mass-update URLs when worldcurl.com went down last summer, which was an adventure.) Updating infoboxes manually can be time-consuming, but at least it's accurate. Tools like WP:AWB may or may not make it faster, but it's fairly manageable without. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In Russian Wikipedia automation from WikiData is "bigger" - in biographical article in template "Спортсмен" (engl. "Sportsman" - template like Infobox curler) I don't need manually write "birth date", "place of birth", "country of citizenship", "sex or gender", "height", "weight", even "delivery" ("playing hand" in WD) and "name in native language" (very useful for Russian Wiki as "non-latin alphabet" language) and many others parameters if they exists in Wikidata. Very useful "time saving" and I wonder why it's not yet in Eng-Wiki. -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 02:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Алексей Густов I agree that pulling more data from Wikidata is a good thing, but is there a concern with people watching the Wikipedia article but not watching all the Wikidata sources it's pulling from, thus not noticing changes/vandalism? If someone edits Rachel Homan and changes her birthdate, for example, I'm sure people will notice it right away and correct it immediately. But if that article magically pulls her birthdate from Wikidata, and someone changes her birthdate over there, I'm not sure if people will notice. -- CurlingClips (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)