Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports

Implementation of consensus infobox changes for current seasons
At Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_172, 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. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a DNAU tag to this thread; feel free to remove it once you have finished implementation. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"Stats only" sports articles on non-SNG topics
I've been pretty active at New Page Patrol lately. (#3 in total reviews for last 90 days)    There's one type of situation which I see come up very frequently. This a "stats only" sports article at a lower or more specific level than where the SNG gives "season" type articles presumed notability. For example, on one of those non-SNG cases "The 2023 season of the XYZ team" "the ABC tournament in the XYZ league". Inevitably these are 1-2 intro sentences and after that it's "stats only" and sources only for the stats. Of course, no GNG references which IMO are unlikely to exist or get added. Some folks will say "coverage probably exists" but it's really not GNG scope about the topic but instead about an individual game or player. So these end up as permanent "stats-only" articles. I've been skipping reviewing most of these, and maybe others have also because there seems to be a lot of them in the 15,000+ article backlog at NPP. There are a lot of folks spending lots of time creating "stats only" sports article of the type described and so this (IMHO) conflict with wp:notability and somewhat wp:not is sort of sad regarding the work that people are doing. Is there any agreement amongst sports article folks to not be creating these "stats-only articles? Is so, I was thinking mostly of giving guidance to folks who are creating them to redirect their efforts to articles with more substantial text/prose type content developed from sources with broader coverage. It would also be nice if there was some agreement on these rather than viewing it as 2 "sides". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * With respect, the quality of an article has little to do with whether or not it is notable. SNG has little to do with it. Do you have some specific examples of articles that you are talking about? I've certainly taken articles that are just a draw template and written articles around them.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The SNG has sections for seasons and events and roughly speaking says that the top tier ones are presumed notable and that the others aren't presumed notable. So it is relevant to this conversation. Also I know that article quality does not affect wp:notability, so maybe I wasn't clear on that. To condense and more directly frame it under wp:notability. These are topics that have nothing establishing wp:notability under the GNG or GNG. The "stats only" aspect is a reflection of not having GNG sources.  I'm hesitant to do it to an editor to have their article show up here for this but it would be useful so maybe if I provide several examples they would be just one in a crowd and fine. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be specific, are we talking about things like WP:SEASONS?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a footy task force page. The general sports guideline is WP:NSEASONS. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * How are the stats typically sourced? Stats sites wouldn't establish notability per WP:SPORTSBASIC: —Bagumba (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In the general case, not sports-specific, how does NPP handle pages that likely meet WP:NEXIST but major cleanup or development is needed (WP:NOTCLEANUP). Is draftifying a viable option? —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm an active NPP'er but I can only speak for myself. Of course everybody will claim "sources probably exist" for their article without dealing with the question of them being GNG sources and being about the (overall) topic of the article. I'm an advocate for it being the job of the millions of editors to search for sources for their articles, rather than the 20 NPP'ers who do 90% of the reviews trying to handle the 15,000 article backlog.   But such is not the case right now. Also, I deal with the part of the NPP cue which is over 90 days old where draftifying is not an option. But to answer your question directly, if I see a terribly written article that needs an immense amount of work (except no copyvios) but where I'm confident the GNG sources about the (overall) topic of the article exist, I will mark it as reviewed and leave it in mainspace even if I had the option to draftify it. And I'd leave specific recommendations / note specific problems during the review.
 * BTW, for articles of the type I brought up in this post, I believe that such sources do not exist, and those articles never have such sources. Technically those are all AFD material but I tend to "pass the buck" and usually don't review those. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up anything, it seems that WP:PROD or AfD is the route to go. If someone is regularly creating articles that get deleted, a discussion on their talk page is in order. In the worst case, there's WP:TBANs. —Bagumba (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These aren't bad actors, there are just a lot of people creating a lot of stats only articles.  I guess what I was hoping for was some recommendation from the project against creating stats-only articles.  North8000 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * These aren't bad actors...: Definitely AGF, but until someone approaches them on their talk page or nominates non-notable pages for deletion, they might not even know there is a problem. Project recommendations could be created, but honestly those are often for regulars, as there's a lot of editors that are probably not aware (and some that don't care) what a WikiProject recommends. At least on the sports projects I'm involved in, nobody is advocating mass stats-only page creation.  However, there'd be less of an issue if the page itself is an WP:NEXISTS topic. So, I'd tackle it as a notability issue, with a page with only stats being a possible symptom. —Bagumba (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Without any examples I'm struggling to know what we are actually advocating against.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My main goal is just to have some clarity on what to do with these at NPP. (I do have an opinion on these but that is secondary)  I have an example....this one is unusually large with a larger number of sources than typical but is a "stats only" article with the only prose content being "stats in words"  2024 FC Ordabasy season   I haven't yet translated and analyzed the 18 non-English sources, but let's posit that there are no GNG type sources in there which is a likely guess. Do y'all think that this should exist as a separate article?  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Only if WP:BEFORE indicates that it's notable.—Bagumba (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The typical pattern is that no GNG sources are found in a search. That is usually inherent for most articles which are 1 season for one team. North8000 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

New Article for an NCAA Division II Basketball Arena
This is a list of all the basketball arenas for NCAA Division II arenas. Which arena would you like to see a Wikipedia page for that doesn't already have one? I've personally constructed two: Halenbeck Hall and O'Reilly Family Event Center, as well as the Arlin R. Horton Sports Center, an NCCAA Division II arena. Wjenkins96 (talk) 00:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Major League Baseball season pages
Would appreciate more input concerning Major League Baseball season pages, as many changes are being proposed & implemented. GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion
Merger discussion here. A proposed merger of Pata (esports) and Porin Ässät. –   Poriman55    - Meddela mig! 19:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Portland Men's Roller Derby nominated at AfD
See/participate in discussion at Articles for deletion/Portland Men's Roller Derby. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

1995 CFL team map
Anybody know how to fix up the Template:CFL team map 1995, for the moment I've hidden it from the 1995 CFL season page. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "fix up" how? What's broken? Primefac (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The labels were all misaligned and the pog marks to represent the US-based South Division were appearing the same color as the North Division ones except for one. I reverted to before the last edit in September that apparently messed something up. It look fine now. oknazevad (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Also the Template:CFL location map 2014+ is problematic. The Eskimos didn't change their name to Elks until the 2021 season, after one year without a moniker. GoodDay (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you either get the choice of old name or new name, but I don't think both ( in the same view ) is appropriate. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That being the case, perhaps a split into two maps, one from before the re-name and one after (and perhaps even a third for the placeholder year) is needed. Though no teams have moved, a team changing its name is a big enough change to warrant a separate map, I'd say. oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit unnecessary since nothing else has changed. I've added in a #switch statement to trigger based off the page name. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent changes patroller who knows hardly anything about sports
Hi everyone! I don't really care about sports and don't know much about them, but what I DO care about is fighting vandalism on Wikipedia! I've been a recent changes patroller for several days and I've noticed that a lot of people edit sports articles to update statistics, like goals scored and stuff. I especially see a lot of people doing that for soccer (association football) players. I would like to learn how to verify those changes to make sure people are accurately reporting the new statistics rather than just typing in random numbers and hoping no one notices. Are there specific sites that y'all use to get this information? I would appreciate a little advice on how I can be more helpful in this area. Thanks! Gottagotospace (talk) 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Your best bet is to talk to the individual sport WikiProjects. For instance, my sports-related activity is heavily on hockey, and the sites we use are www.hockeydb.com, www.hockey-reference.com and www.eliteprospects.com (the last mostly for juniors and European hockey).  With that, sports-reference.com has a whole family of reliable sites, including ones for baseball, soccer, football, basketball and collegiate football and basketball.  Some individual leagues also are good with their own stat sites.  ESPN maintains its own. With soccer being the world's most popular sport, naturally much of the traffic will be soccer-related.  That project is WP:FOOTY, and they can steer you towards the more reliable stat sites for their domestic leagues.   Ravenswing      17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My general hand-wavey response would be that if the stats are only changing by small values (+1/2 for appearances, reasonable increases for "points scored" etc) I would consider them to be acceptable; it's when values change drastically that I would start questioning. Yes, it does mean that some values might still be changed incorrectly without being caught, but that's why we have a lot of RC patrollers, and of course the folks who watch the pages are likely to catch things as well. Primefac (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Mm, but if Gottagotospace isn't knowledgeable enough to know the difference, how could they tell? A gridiron football player scoring six points in a game, okay, he contributed.  A basketball player scores six points in a game, he had a turn off of the bench, or a pretty mediocre day if he was a starter.  A hockey player scoring six points in a game had an epic day that will show up in highlight reels.  A soccer player scoring six times in a game is an instant legend who broke or tied the record in almost every top domestic league in Europe.   Ravenswing      18:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information! What about rugby? I know literally NOTHING about rugby except that Brits like it, the players get in huddles, there is a ball involved, and people get injured a lot. Gottagotospace (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Among other things, which rugby? The WikiProject for rugby league is WP:RL.  The project for rugby union is WP:RU.  (Rugby league and union have slightly different rule sets.)   Ravenswing      00:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay so tl;dr, it's complicated, thank you :) Gottagotospace (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and why it's only a vague hand-wavey answer. Primefac (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Where would one propose a policy tweak regarding commercial sponsors of sporting events?
I'd like to open a broad discussion about Wikipedia using commercial sponsors in the first sentence of articles about sporting events. It's my opinion that these should be a simple mention in the body of the article if there are reliable secondary sources that discuss naming rights contracts, etc., but that these sponsors' commercial placement in the lead is WP:UNDUE. To be clear, this is only in regards to cases where the vast majority of secondary sources use the WP:COMMONNAME of an event, like Japan Series, which has had multiple sponsors over the years that are usually only mentioned on television or primary sources emanating from the event organizers (who are paid to do that). What would be the best place to open this discussion? Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here works, or perhaps Village pump if you're looking for more general input. —Bagumba (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you enquiring about things like Bulls (rugby union), where the first sentence is The Bulls, for sponsorship reasons known as the Vodacom Bulls... or Premiership Rugby, officially known as Gallagher Premiership Rugby? Primefac (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A bunch of things like that. The Bulls (rugby union) is a great example. They're not "known as the Vodacom Bulls", as far I can tell by looking at sources. And I would guess that fans would never say they're "known as the Vodacom Bulls", so that makes that phrase original research, and we have it right in the first sentence!
 * To be clear, I'm not looking to advocate for some blanket site-wide policy, because I do think it's dependent on each topic. Maybe more like a guideline - when there is solid secondary RS documentation on the naming rights deal, late in the lead is a good place for a mention, with expansion in the lead if there's enough material for it. When there isn't much secondary-sourced material about a sponsorship and/or naming rights deal, and it's mostly primary sources (people who are paid, and effectively forced) that mention the sponsor's name, we should leave that to a short mention in the body. I'd like to propose a guideline essay along those lines. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unreasonable, but (to stick with the Bulls) if their official website states the sponsorship (as https://bullsrugby.co.za/ does) then it's not really OR to state the sponsorship name. That being said, we can certainly discuss whether we need to state such sponsorship information. So I guess there are things to discuss! Primefac (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I think I'm in line with you on this, in that I'm not saying it's OR to state the sponsorship name - I'm saying it's probably OR to state "they're known as the Vodacom Bulls". I don't think that phrase (which is in the lead) is sourced, and furthermore, I don't think it's even accurate. They're known as the Bulls. So yes, put a mention of the sponsorship in the body, by all means, but I don't think it's helpful or accurate to have that phrase in the lead. If there's a paragraph or more on the sponsorship in the body, sourced to reliable secondary sources, add a line somewhere late in the lead to acknowledge that significant coverage of the sponsorship exists. That's my take. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, while most team/tournaments company teams are sponsored, there has various cases that a companies that owns a team or organizes a championship
 * Some exemples for tournaments/championships is the NHK Cup and The Borg-Warner Trophy . For Teams there has various in Asia, some exemples the teams in NPB and KBO like the Orix Buffaloes, Hokkaido Nippon-Ham Fighters and and LG Twins - Meganinja202 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no issue if the team/event's page title includes the company name already as its WP:COMMONNAME. The issue is more how to deal with sponsor names that are not in the page title. —Bagumba (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess you are talking about the issue about The apan Series sponsored name, right?
 * I guess its a difficult debate, in this case, I think that Japan Series or Nippon Series should be used for tradition and the fact the tournament has changed sponsors in the past, besides in some like NASCAR Cup Series the title of the posts had changed as new sponsors also replaced old ones - Meganinja202 (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And if the page title is 2023 Japan Series, when should the sponsor be mentioned in the lead sentence, somewhere else in the lead, just in the body, or not at all? —Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Usually the sponsor is talked in the lead and body, i think that it should remain unchanged since the sponsor needs be mentioned in those cases.
 * eo, in Japan Series case it would be this way: "The 2023 Nippon Series, known as the SMBC Nippon Series 2023 for sponsorship reasons"
 * also the infobox should carry the sponsored name of the tournament for that year, akin of what NASCAR does Meganinja202 (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think including the sponsored name it's known by is fine in the lede if it's clearly known as such and clearly indicated that it's known as such for sponsorship reasons. SportingFlyer  T · C  18:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * its ok for me as well, at least dont bother me - Meganinja202 (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SportingFlyer: By "clearly known", do you mean that WP:WEIGHT should be applied, or merely that the sponsor's preferred name is factual? —Bagumba (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion, I'm implying WP:WEIGHT is indeed important here. If a league is formally called the Wikipedia Divison One but everyone including newspapers just calls it Division One, then ignore it - otherwise mention that it's the Wikipedia Division One for sponsorship purposes. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Consensus about North American rights listing is needed
I need help me in reach consensus about the way North American Soccer/Football rights are listed in broadcast lists, since this issue is happening a lot, i feel we need seek for a definite consensus about it so dont it happens again and again.

It is happening now in Talk:UEFA Euro 2024 broadcasting rights#Why Language Spit for USA/Canada is needed, but also happened in Talk:2023 FIFA Women's World Cup broadcasting rights as well in past but had reached consensus about this theme.

The most debate it have, the better, I think that this is too much overlooked and should be resoved as far as possible, also to be clear: THIS IS FOR NORTH AMERICA LISTING ONLY. Meganinja202 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the problem. If company A has rights in country Z for language α and company B has rights in country Z for language β, why wouldn't we just list them both under country Z? SportingFlyer  T · C  18:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Besides the way rights are sold, there has the issue that sometimes, Company A that has rights for language 1, sells part of its rights to a company C, while B has keeps exclusivity of language 2, this is what is happening in USA this year, but its not clarified in the list
 * Meanwhile, there has the issue that Company A has 1 and 2 language channels, but prefered get rights for 1 language while B had got for language 2, this is what happening in Canada and is also not being clarified in the list
 * In both cases should be clarified so users dont get confused, assuming it for both of historical documentation but also knowing that most users users want visit the list so they can know where they can watch the tournament - Meganinja202 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTVGUIDE, we don't need a guide here, certainly the world would NOT dig in deep, WP:USEFUL? 116.87.89.246 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why it would be considered a TV guide? it is not showing what match will pass in each channel, is just following the way UEFA sells the rights
 * Although the edit is for future referencies about how UEFA sold the rights, if you google "UEFA 2024 Broadcast", the Wiki is the first/second thing that shows up, so yea we need assume those types of people as potential readers, and follow Readers first - Meganinja202 (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should i bother about Google search results, UEFA eventually will publish a list of broadcasters, readers first? How many readers after the championship? Are the readers interested in how the UEFA sold the rights? 101.127.14.218 (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For history purposes is likey that people will research no mattering the number. And yes, many will be intrested in how UEFA sold the rights for that time, there has lot of people that study and like read about sports business and sports marketing, and for sure those people will try to read the wiki articles about tv rights and sponsorship for that time. - Meganinja202 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For sure, learn from you, your own POV, and keep defending what you did. What people are learning, studying and even working are the same what you did on Wikipedia? Shame is like you are leaning your research towards what people mindset just like original research, and also like to canvassing the consensus from the help, even something not in the objectives. 39.109.137.3 (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be agressive, try to be civil please.
 * If i dont wanted debate it, it is consistent or not, i wouldnt opening it to debate here Meganinja202 (talk) 22:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the table of broadcasters can adequately capture the details of how the rights were licensed and sub-licensed. I think a prose description is needed. I don't think the vast majority of those seeking to view the event in a given country will be confused by the current table, as they will be familiar with the broadcast languages of the broadcasters in question. isaacl (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Which time to list for goals scored?
This is just example.

There are 2 goals listed for Spain with respectively 17 and 28 as time.

This matches with the info on the "report" link.

If we look at the JSON data, we get more precise info.

The 1st goal is scored after 17 mins and 16 secs, the 2nd goal after 28 mins and 19 secs.

17 mins and 16 secs is the 18th minute and 28 mins and 19 secs is the 29th minute.

In my opinion it would be more correct to list the goals with respectively 18 and 29. Unless we list a goal scored after 0 mins and 52 secs as 0 and not as 1. A goal with time 0 seems odd to me. --Sb008 (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The report says 17' and 28' so we use 17' and 28'. Primefac (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This report (WC 2002 place 3/4) says Hakan Şükür scored after 1'. He actually scored after 0 mins and 11 secs.


 * Not very consistent, someone who scores after 17 mins and 16 secs is listed on the report with 17'. Someone who scored after 0 mins and 11 secs is on the report not listed as 0' but as 1.


 * In other words, when the match reports are inconsistent, we have to be too. --Sb008 (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * in general, I've seen match reports report the time as being the next number. So, something that happens after 7 minutes is in the 8th minute. However, as Primefac says, it makes zero difference to us, we just state what the report says.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Flag football
Would someone be willing to assist in creating a template like Template:American football national team link but for flag football? It looks like only Denmark has a page, but still. Right now some tournament pages link to rugby teams and some to American football teams. It would be better to have redlinks than go to the wrong page. It will be added to the 2028 Olympics so there should be an increased interest in a few years. Tbennert (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You mean something like this, e.g. for Denmark: and . For other countries it's next only a matter of creating the team pages for that specific country, e.g. Brasil:  and, or Spain:  and . As you can see red links right now because the pages for those countries don't exist. --Sb008 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes,that looks like what I want. Does the template need to have every country listed? Or does it just work for whichever one I input. Only so many countries have a team, so if it gets input ahead of time I could get a list together.--Tbennert (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Under what context should we use such templates though?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're using a wrapper template such as the American football one you link above, a country input will give the appropriate output. In thinking about this a bit more, if there is only one team that has an article, it might not yet be time for a template - they're best for when there are multiple teams across multiple articles that require linking. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I totally get that, the problem really is that multiple tournament pages link to the wrong sport. I can go through and manually input Austria national flag football team etc. which I guess I'll do. The whole template thing didn't work. Either way results in multiple redlinks, but again, I'd rather it link to the correct sport. Tbennert (talk) 04:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Initially for pages like IFAF Flag Football World Championship and 2021 IFAF Women's Flag Football World Championship. Other sports use this type of template (Category:Flag template system) so I think it's reasonable to have one. I just don't know how to create it--Tbennert (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just copy the code of an existing flag template and change the wording (e.g. "national American football team" → "national flag football team"). Primefac (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did that(Template:Flag football national team), typed in IFAF Flag Football World Championship and it just has a "Template:Ffb" red link. Really not sure what to do from here. I thought there was more, so I was asking for help--Tbennert (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , that's because you created Template:Flag football national team but you didn't also create Template:ffb as a redirect, so yes, you'd get a redlinked template. As far as I can tell your original template did work as you wanted, just needs a redirect for a shortcut. Primefac (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

If you want I can create the following templates:

As you can see I add "men's" for the male teams so the name format is alike for male and female teams. Besides, this is the 21st century where men no longer have the sole right on the neutral (without gender) name. This requires the page Denmark national flag football team to be renamed/moved to Denmark men's national flag football team.

Are we only dealing with adult teams or do we need templates for "under .." teams as well? --Sb008 (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This would be wonderful! There don't seem to be any major tournaments with under teams so that isn't needed. Thank you! Tbennert (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't care if you create the shortcuts, but please title them with the full name. ffb should redirect to Flag football national team. Primefac (talk) 00:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And why should they be a redirect to a template with a full name as title? Because we redirect fb to national football team as well? Oops, national football team does exist, however that is a redirect to infobox national football team. And where should we redirect ffb-rt to? Flag football national team-rt?


 * Should be clear, I see no valid reason to use full names as titles and to have redirects as short names. But, feel free to convince me otherwise. --Sb008 (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Template names should be clear as to what they are and what they do. Just because there are old templates that currently use acronyms doesn't mean they will always use acronyms; la and two dozen other templates were just recently renamed to their full and more-appropriate names, and I (and a few others) are in the process of finding and expanding other non-obvious templates with short names or abbreviations. Just because pages exist that aren't ideal doesn't mean we should make more of them. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In which discussion was a consensus reached about this? --Sb008 (talk) 13:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You better present that consensus. Your whole behavior is quite rude anyway. While I'm creating all, you start renaming without discussion, add additional doc pages. Guess you cant even have a break without some interfering person feeling the need to interfere. There's rude behavior and rude behavior, and my opinion, you display both. --Sb008 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * the title of the template should explain what the template does if at all possible. We shouldn't have templates like ill if it's an abbreviation of the full title. Having the redirect is fine, but it should live at the full name of the template.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)


 * WP:CRITERIA applies to article titles. As far as I know we don't have something similar for template titles. Nice you present an opinion, but I would like to see a link to a rule, or a discussion with an established consensus.--Sb008 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See point three of WP:TG  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The rule is clear, so in that sense I can't object. However, many of the templates which supposed to have a name which explains what the template does, in my opinion don't explain it at all, or create a false perspective.

Take Interlanguage link (or ill), it doesn't provide a link between languages. The template could be a link from SIMPLE-Wiki to EN-Wiki. Both are in the same language (English), so nothing inter-language about it. It's a link between 2 Wikipedia's and not necessary between to 2 Languages. Wiki to Wiki link seems to me a more appropriate name.

How much does the template name Flag football women's national team explain? If I would see it without the knowledge I've right now, I would have no idea what the template is for. I would have to read the template documentation first. Maybe it gives a list of all team players or a match history list or whatever. I don't like the name anyway, Women's national flag football team seems more appropriate to me, since the pages it links to have as title "XXX women's national flag football team" where XXX is a country name. However, this template name still doesn't tell me what the template does. If we want a title which indicates the function of the template, we should have something like Provide a link to a women's national flag football team by displaying the flag and name of its country. Of course that would be a ridiculous template name, but if we want to honor the demand "Template function should be clear from the template name" that's the consequence. Right now, there are a lot of templates names which don't clarify much, and force me to read the template documentation to find out its function. If I've to read the documentation first, the template name might as well be an abbreviated name. Maybe even better, since one should always read the template documentation first.

But that's all just opinion, my opinion. --Sb008 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're also being incredibly pedantic. Feel free to start an RM for any or all of the above hyperbolic examples you have given above. Primefac (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Asian Women's Volleyball Challenge Cup
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Asian Women's Volleyball Challenge Cup that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Векочел (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_June_20
Any ideas about this RFD? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/George Kane (American football)
AfD within scope of this project regarding whether or not we will enforce WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources."). Cbl62 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Same issue at Articles for deletion/John Quast. Cbl62 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Tony Mehelich. Cbl62 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Alec Anderson (American football, born 1894) - another one-game player where the redirect was challenged/reverted. Cbl62 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Overcategorization
I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk'') It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.''John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article."

''** The problem is that categories are meant to be about defining things about a person. If we cannot be bothered to even mention it in an article, how is it defining? It appears that the actual used sources do not even mention all these teams. Which tells us that all 18 teams are not seen to be as core or central to his identify. One of the teams played with, not that it gets any mention in the text, is the Hickory Crawdads. They were at the time I believe a single-A level team, that means 4th tier. I have looked through all the external links on Jim Abbott and I am still not seeing where in the tables it mentions all 18 professional teams he played with. Actually this is what it says in his article "In 1989, he joined the Angels' starting rotation as a rookie without playing a single minor league game." So when was he with the Hickory Crawdads.''John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I sorted this out. Jim Abbott is in 4 minor league player categories, although his article says he never played a minor league game. The quote above was actually about Kurt Abbott, although he is only categorized by 17 pro-sports teams, so maybe the editor is misunsing "pro" to include college baseball, I do not know. Only one of the minor league teams he was on is mentioned in the article. This seems to be running afould of Cat:DEF guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)