Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 3

Peer review: Extreme ironing
As silly as the article may be, I'd request the community's input in this peer review, please. -- Zanimum 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer review/Extreme ironing/archive1

List of nationality transfers in sport
I have just created the List of nationality transfers in sport, but it focusses almost completely on the Netherlands, and on the few examples that I know. I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to help me globalize the article. A ecis Bravado 00:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Weight training FAR
Weight training has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Naming issues with new category
I was thinking about creating a category for sports structures/surfaces, like tennis court, football pitch, cricket field, boxing ring, baseball field, volleyball court, basketball court, dojo, dohyo, hockey rink, etc. But what to name it? Category:Sports fields? But many of these are not fields. Sports pitches? Same problem. Sports structures? That would seem more appropriate for stadiums, not for the sports "fields" around which the stadiums are built. Sports facilities? Same problem. I'm lost for ideas. Does anyone have any suggestions? A ecis Brievenbus 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Either enclosures or environments, perhaps? &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not too keen on those two either, I'm afraid. Enclosure reminds me of a meadow, while environment could cause confusion with ecology/climate. Surface won't work either, because that would apply to astroturf/gravel/grass/etcetera. According to Wiktionary, a field in sports is "An area reserved for playing a game." So perhaps I'll have to settle for Sports fields. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing topics
I have a short list of missing topics related to sports. I've tried to find any relevant or similar articles but I'd appreciate if any expert could have a look at the list. Thank you. - Skysmith 12:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment and peer review?
Don't we all think it's time to establish assessment and peer review here? The vast majority of subprojects are never going to have their own, because there simply are not enough articles under these subprojects, but collectively there are more than enough, and they need somewhere to be assessed and reviewed. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 00:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to User:Carlosguitar for getting the assessment ball rolling. Has that all been set up?  I know there are Wikipedia Version 1.0 bot processes that have to be dealt with to make these assessements actually mean anything.  Also, I think we may have to recruit among all the sports subprojects especially those that do not have their own assessment processes to get enough assessors.  The individual projects' project tags for talk pages can probably be hacked to use WP:SPORTS assessments.  I'll probably do this first with WP:CUE as an experiment and see how it works. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of Independence
When in the course of Editing, it becomes necessary for one WikiProject to dissolve the Links which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of Wikipedia, the separate and equal Project Page to which the Policies of Wikipedia entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Wikipedians requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

In other words, some of the members of WikiProject Sports Olympics have expressed that we should remove the name "Sports" from our project. At the time it was created, it was only meant to be a sub-project of the Sports project, but Olympic-related articles have enumerated and thus have a whole different set of policies. Since you are our parent WikiProject, I figured that I'd let you know before we declare a Revolution.

If anyone has any objections, then, against moving our Wikiproject to WikiProject Olympics, off with your heads! (or just drop us a note on the project talk page, or my talk page). └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support. Sounds eminently reasonable to me. But then again, I'm not a Sports monarchist. ;-)  I think the new version should still be listed here as a "child" project, because such relationships are meant to be categorical, not literally indicative of one project having forked off of another (indeed I'd bet good money that quite a few sport-related projects existed before WP:SPORTS did itself.) &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah definitely, it would stay listed as a "child" wikiproject, but we're just taking the name sports out of the project name. I just seems right. We're not breaking all ties (as my Olympics Declaration of Independence seemed to suggest) but merely saying that we're officially on our own. And removing "Sports" does it. Thanks for complying. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 01:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Besides, the scope of the wikiproject doesn't fall only on Olympic sports-related pages, so having the "Sports" term is kind of reducing.  Parutakupiu  talk 23:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exhibition game / Friendly match / Scrimmage cleanup
Did a bunch of cleanup in these articles: The detailed rationale for all this stuff can be found at Talk:Exhibition game if anyone has questions. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 17:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged Fr. and Ex., fixing a bunch of POV and other problems in the process.
 * Expanded scope of Ex., because as originally written it was basically just "'Exhibition game' is the US term for 'friendly match' in football", which was utter nonsense; the term has widespread use throughout all competitive sports and games! Others had already added sections for other sports, but the article intro was still bollocks.
 * Converted Scr. to a proper disambiguation page, and did some related cleanup at Scrum (disambiguation), etc.
 * PS: I've wikiproject tagged the resulting Exhibition game talk page, and assessed the merged article as Start-class and Mid-importance (the original two Ex. and Fr. stubs would have been more like Stub and Low in both cases, because they were, well, rather lacking and were too narrow and competing. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

University of Pittsburgh Panthers
Hi, I'm with the Pittsburgh WikiProject and I just noticed the stated this article is in. I am not familiar with sports-related articles, but this one is a string of stats, and I was hoping some editors from here could take a look at the article. I appreciate any help. Thanks. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

History of sports
Hi, I've just added my name to the list of project participants. My special interest here is in overall sports history and I have been wondering about starting an independent project but I'm not sure if there is enough interest. A few people around the site have made good contributions to the subject but the trouble is that they specialise in baseball, soccer and cricket mainly, so I doubt if they will commit their time to studying other sports.

I just found this project and I think my best approach will be to tackle sports history from within sports. So far, I've just been seeing what's there and tidying up the category. I'd like to decompose the article Pre-1850s in sports and also establish a "History of X" article for all specific sports. I'm struggling to find time at present but I think those are realistic targets going forward. I'll keep in touch from time to time. Any help or advice most welcome. Many thanks. --Einar 10:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Great idea, and yes this should definitely be a Task Force of WP:SPORTS, not a new WikiProject. Not sure I have any advice per se, not having delved into that aspect much myself. —  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;   ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your support. I'll try to make a bit more progress, time allowing, and I'll report here with any ideas or issues. --Einar 17:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Navbox for articles about sports in North American cities
I have taken a crack at creating Template:Sports in North American Cities and I invite contribution. Take a look at the template-- in doing this project, I noticed that there isn't a whole lot of consistency among sports articles for cities: many cities only have a "Sports in THIS-CITY" category without having a "Sports in THIS-CITY" _article_. (Houston and Los Angeles appear to be among the large U.S. cities that don't have their own sports articles). Among the cities that have articles, some concentrate on major-league professional sports, and others also discuss on collegiate, secondary school level or even amateur sports. There isn't even much consistency in namespace: there's a Sport in Montreal and a Sports in Philadelphia, a Boston sports, a Pittsburgh Sports, and a Professional sport in Toronto (note the various "sport" vs "sports" and the variations in word order and capitalization). Spikebrennan 17:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Pigeon racing
I am attempting to recruit people to help out with this article. Would anybody object to it being added to this WikiProject? Abbott75 06:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. Carlosguitar 04:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Highest-priority article improvement needed
One of the core articles on the sport&#91;s&#93; topic in general is an utterly shameful stub: Sport governing body. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 08:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Project / Sports Template
It might be a good idea to firmly support adding infoboxes for each individual sport. the current template is, however, in my opinion not the best solution and is tweaked way too much towards american (or 'national oriented') sports. The most sports have for example a world organisation consisting of numerous national member organisations and do not have a world league that conatins any teams. Therefore, I think these should not be in such a box. Stuff like contact or no contact, individual or team, mixed gender or not, genre (athletics, winter, outdoor indoor etc) can be included, since they tend to decribe the sport itself more (than for example a list of teams doing this sport does). Please feel free to discuss. -Catneven 08:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my current proposition: The values are totally wrong, but consider it an example. I hope this sees implementation in the sportsarticles:

It automatically includes category templates when olympic, teammembers and ball type are filled out. -Catneven 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ToDos
I added some todo's for this project. One of them is the gathering of all the sports pages (especially the olympic sports) for inclusion in the project. Right now we miss a lot of them. In the last 24 hours alone I added 5 sports to the project. The second of them is the assesment,both on quality and importance.-Catneven 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Userbox
I added a userbox to the main site. for all participants to use. This will also include you in the category of participants. -Catneven 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Name Giving
In my initial round of gathering sports for the project I encountered a large number of issues surrounding the names of certain sports (and the possible ambiguation therin). I propose that we use the Olympic standard (the largest cross-sports organization) in namegiving and try to 'enforce' this on the individual sports pages. Of course discussion is invited. -Catneven 08:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sumo Wikiproject
I have made a proposal for a WikiProject Sumo Proposal. Yesterday I spent part of the day sourcing Akebono with a few other people after its repeated blanking due to lack of sources. Most sumo articles are not well sourced. Sumo is the national sport of Japan, and is becoming more and more popular outside Japan at both the professional and amateur ranks. Though under two WikiProjects already, I think it would be to the advantage of both the articles of sumo and wikipedia as a whole if Sumo is placed under its own WikiProject. If you would like to join or have any comments, please go to the Project proposal page. Thanks! XinJeisan 18:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Category for sports announcers/broadcasters/commentators/something
Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 4. A lot of categories in Wikipedia relating to sports commentators/announcers/broadcasters/something or other have been inconsistently named, and we are all having problems trying to figure out a good name to use for all categories as well as for the article sportscaster and list of sports announcers. Could people here provide some advice? Thank you, Dr. Submillimeter 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The larger issue raised there does indeed need to be discussed and settled. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 16:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

High school track and field in Kansas
Hey folks,

This article is currently a long list of stats. I don't know what your guidelines are on formatting or inclusion of sports statistics (I'm not a sports person myself), but I thought I'd point it out in case someone wants to take a look. It could also use an actual intro. Thanks, --Alynna 00:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

skateboarding wikiproject
See WikiProject_Council/Proposals for more info. --Hdt83 Chat 06:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well it seems that thier is already a project but is is inactive. If anybody is interested it's at WikiProject_Skateboarding.--Hdt83 Chat 08:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Subcategory for current team members
There are many category that inexplicably lump a sporting team's past memebers with its current members. For example see: Category:New York Yankees players, Category:Boca Juniors footballers, and Category:San Antonio Spurs players. Why can't I start creating subcategories for every one of these cats to differentiate current players from players who are no longer on the team? For example, we would have Category:Current New York Yankees players and Current Boca Juniors footballers:, etc.

Granted keeping these categories maintained would take an enormous amount of work at first, but work is what we Wikipedia volunteers are all about, and I would certainly pitch in. And, yes, certain categorizations would become out of date quickly, but I believe editors who were fans of the respective teams would recategorize articles as new players joined and old players left the team. The result would be greatly useful.

I'm 90% sure that people have brought this up before and decided against this idea (if so, please provide a link to the old discussion), but I would like someone to confirm it for me. I am also leaving a note on the Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people page to seek more input. If I don't hear back from any of you with reasonable objections, I will procede to begin making the subcategories. Thanks, --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Such categories will be WP:CFD'd with extreme prejudice, on the basis of long standing precendent that categories do not make a distinction between present and former (I don't even know why; they simply don't). The CfD-proof solution you probably want is to instead create Category New York Yankees 2007 players, etc.  That's a subtly different tactic, and from what I have seen so far (having used it myself, but for tournament event seasons and such, not for players specifically) does not arouse any ire at CfD. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 00:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Football (soccer) FAR
Football (soccer) has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. __meco 20:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Athletics vandalism
I just noticed a strangely fast 100m time on 1990 Commonwealth Games (Linford Christie apparently won the 100m in 9.37 seconds). Digging in the page history revealed a large amount of athletics time/score vandalism by this user, almost all of it uncorrected. I haven't the time to fix it up, but hopefully this will catch someone's attention who has more time. Orpheus 19:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rogaining
The rogaining article could use some editorial attention. --Una Smith 14:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

New broad Category:Sports event promotion companies
Noticed a gap in the category space and filled it. Category needs populating. Right now has only one general entry (co. that promotes/organizes about 10 different sports events), and one subcategory (for cue sports). There are probably dozens of articles, at least, that could be categorized in here. It is for commercial entities that are organizing/hosting/promoting events such as tournaments, tours, championships, televised challenge matches, etc. on a for-profit basis, not for leagues in general (though some leagues like the NFL and International Pool Tour qualify, because they serve both roles), nor for governing bodies/rules issuers/sanctioning organizations (usually nonprofits, though again a multifaceted entity like the NBA might qualify, unless they get their rules from some umbrella organization). Kind of a judgement call. In pool, for example, the BCA is in Category:Cue sports organizations (as a sanctioning body/rules issuer/governing body), and Category:Cue sports leagues (because they also run an amateur competitive league), but not in this new category, since they do not serve this role; meanwhile IPT is in all three, because they are a sports entertainment enterprise first and foremost (Category:Cue sports event promotion companies), who run their own exclusive pro-am league (Category:Cue sports leagues), and, by rejecting the BCA/WPA World Standardized Rules and issuing their own (a combination of BCA-ish rules and "bar pool"), are acting as their own totally independent governing/sanctioning body (Category:Cue sports organizations). Hope that's not too complicated for anyone, and I'm sure it is much simpler to figure out in more "monolithic" sports like Major League Baseball, NHL hockey, FIFA football (soccer) and American college football, for examples. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Category: by nationality
I notice that many sports have a " by nationality" category (e.g. Category:Cricketers by nationality, Category:Cyclists by nationality, etc), which fit neatly as subcategories of Category:Sportspeople by nationality. However a lot of other sports, which do have their particpants categorised by nationality don't have a "by nationality" category, e.g. Backgammon has Category:American backgammon players, Category:Canadian backgammon players, etc, but no Category:Backgammon players by nationality. Do you think there would be any objections if I created the missing "by nationality" categories? And/or do you think I would need to consult the relevant individual WikiProjects first? DH85868993 03:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, just do it, or the categoryspace will have gaps. Good catch. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 10:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:Sportspeople by sport
What's the intention of Category:Sportspeople by sport - is it only intended to include categories for "competitors" (e.g. Category:Badminton players, Category:Boxers, Category:Cyclists, etc), or is it also intended to include categories for administrators, coaches, etc? Currently there's some inconsistency, e.g. Category:Golf administrators is included, but Category:American football coaches is not. DH85868993 03:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "sportsperson" usually means "athlete", so I personally don't think coaches and stuff should be in there at all. But I think this is the first time the question has been raised, and it really begs a bigger one: Where do such people go?  I have done a little lately, and we now have both Category:Sports agents and Category:Sports management companies (one existed already, but the other didn't, leaving all the agencies just filed under Category:Sports business.  Anyway, I think what we need to do is identify all of the sorts of people and multi-person entities that we can, and then start lumping them together here until we arrive at a sane Category:Sports-on-down classification scheme, and with reference to other fields' categories (e.g. do other topics use "businesses" or "companies", "administrators" or "managers", etc.), because all of the categories we might come up with like Category:Sports agents will also need to be classified under non-sports categories (is there a Category:Agents?) I.e. you have opened a big can of worms. >;-)  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 10:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination Backlog
There's quite a long backlog currently at the Good Article nomination page, and I thought some of you might be able to help out. There's a pretty long list of sports-related articles seeking GA review, so if someone that's familiar with the area could help out and review an article or two, that would be appreciated!

Also, if you're not as familiar with the GA process, it might help to review the Good Article criteria. If you're not too sure if the article meets all the criteria, but probably meets some of them, you can do a partial review, and then request a second opinion from a more experienced reviewer as well.

Cheers! Dr. Cash 00:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Template
Is there any way a group of ppl would develop a template to put on all sports articles (similar to WP:Countries)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 23:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation query
Hi, folks. I recently discovered that we have articles on two athletes named Tom Wilkinson. One, currently at Tom Wilkinson (football player), is an American athlete who played in the Canadian Football League. The other, Tom Wilkinson (footballer), is an English football (soccer) player. (The undisambiguated Tom Wilkinson is used for the actor, who's far better known and has many more links than either athlete.) My question is this: do the parenthetical disambiguations (football player) and (footballer) adequately distinguish between the sports played by the two athletes named Tom Wilkinson? I know that the term "footballer" is used solely of football (soccer) players, but I think that the term "football player" is used for both players of soccer and players of (American) football. Have you folks had a conversation about this possible conflict of terms? Is there a better way to distinguish the two, or do we just assume that hatnotes pointing potential readers back and forth will take care of any possible confusion? I leave the matter in your hands. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Tortured plywood kayak design
As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Tortured plywood kayak design is notable enough for an own article. I originally posted to the talk page of WikiProject Kayaking, but the project does not seem to be active. Is there somebody here who could have a look at the article? For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Contents subpages (not by me). This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 18:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * List of basic sports topics

Discussion on use of logos
Please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content and contribute to the discussion, if you wish. Best, Johntex\talk 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Top-X" and "legends" articles
I'd like to hold a consensus discussion about the creation of "Top-X" articles and their even more subjective ilk. I am a member of WP:SNOOKER and the broader WP:CUE so I naturally do not want to pick on snooker, pool or billiards topics, but I am most familiar with that segment of the sports articlespace, so I will use two examples from there, and advance my position on the matter:
 * Top-16 snooker players - a list of all (modern, anyway; i.e. WPBSA pro players who have ever ranked in the top 16, i.e. qualified for the Snooker World Championships.
 * List of champion snooker players - a list of some of the top snooker champions (all such champs are listed at the objective List of Snooker World Champions article), and some not-quite-world-champs who have been contenders again and again, along with sort of a mini-article summary of each of them.

I'm having trouble finding any comparable articles. There seem to be no Top-10 Formula 1 drivers, Baseball greats, Legendary ice hockey players or Top-earning American football players type of articles, for any sport or activity. This strongly suggests to me that such articles (and any categories that would attempt to fulfill the same purpose) are non-encyclopedic, for the reasons given next.

The problem with "top-X" articles is principally that the criterion is arbitrary and usually subjective. Even where it is not subjective – "the Top 16" (and "Top 8", "Top 32", etc.) are actual terms of art in professional snooker, as are hyphenated adjective forms, as in "he is a Top-8 player") – it is still not defining, in the terms used by WP:OVERCAT. "Almost a champion" is not an encyclopedically defining characteristic.  It is notable that we do have Category:Academy Award winners while Category:Academy Award nominees and all of its subcategory were Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 12 (and the recreations of two of them are currently being speedied per G4). The simplest rationale is, as someone said at CfD, that these are "loser categories".  Sames goes for the "Top-X" category and list article ideas.  Either you're the champion or you're not, and coming close may be a person source of satisfaction (more like disappointment in the case of most sports pros' temperaments), but that is of not encyclopedic concern.

The problem with ill-defined lists of "greats" is even more obvious: They are totally subjective as to their inclusion and exclusion criteria, and thus a violation WP:NPOV and usually WP:NOR as well. In non-sporting contexts I've seen many similarly opinional pieces get deleted at WP:AFD, and that I can't find any other sports examples than this one suggests that plenty of sports ones have gone that route as well. The article in question here has other problems, such as redundant detail with the individuals' article subjects, but that's not particularly important to this discussion.

So, I await feedback, pro or con, on this. Maybe there are valid reasons for one or both articles of this sort that I'm just not seeing. I'd rather has this out here than go to AfD about it, since there may be sports concerns that are not immediately obvious to the average AfD participant. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open
Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.


 * General information about the project: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
 * Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Scrambles in the Canadian Rockies: Adspam?
Scrambles in the Canadian Rockies is currently a stub, possibly adspam. Should this article be saved or go to Afd? -- Writtenonsand (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a prime AfD candidate to me. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate categories?
What is the distinction between Category:Sports scandals and Category:Sports controversies? Should they be merged (noting that some articles appear in both categories). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would say that the scandals one would necessarily have to be a subcategory of the controversies one (scandals are controversial by definition, while not all controversies are scandalous), and therefore no articles should be in both categories. The words aren't synonymous, so I don't see any grounds for a merge. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 09:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Is table tennis considered part of this project?
Is it possible for someone to improve coverage of the International Table Tennis Federation sports? There are many table tennis stars, such as Ma Lin, Wang Nan, and Ko Lai Chak who are lightly covered at best. On Chinese TV (CCTV-4), I've seen a lot of coverage, but there does not seem to be much in a way on the wikipedia articles. Could this be a task force under one of the sports projects? Please let me know. Thanks. --Jjc104 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly within the scope of this project. You could start a task force or a separate WikiProject for it. I would propose the matter at WP:COUNCIL/P, and invite all major contributors to the relevant articles to comment and partcipate. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible Bowling subproject?
There is now a proposal at WikiProject Council/Proposals for a group to deal specifically with Bowling which has gotten five members, which is generally thought enough for a task force. Would this project be willing to take on such a subproject? John Carter (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not in a position to say no. Whether something is a project or task force is up to WP:COUNCIL/P consensus, really - it's simply a matter of where the pages sit, for the most part. Everything else is up to the partcipants in the new project/taskforce. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)