Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

ESPN magazine representative wishes to work with interested Wikipedans to expand article

(Cross-posted to several relavant wikiprojects)

A representative of ESPN magazine wishes to work with interested Wikipedians to expand the ESPN The Magazine article. If any Wikipedians are interested in this, please leave a note at Talk:ESPN_The_Magazine#ESPN_magazine. Raul654 (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Accept this with great care, and realize that no official rep from the magazine can be used as a citable source for very much, and should not be editing or directing the editing of the article, which should be based on multiple, independent, reliable sources, per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Baby tossing

I've put the article Baby tossing up for deletion as an unverifiable hoax. It arguably should never have been categorized as a "sport", but it was so members of this project may wish to comment at the AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

1991-92 in English football

1991-92 in English football could use some tidying up, it looks like anons have been adding incorrect information for a while now (I reverted a lot of it). Cbrown1023 talk 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Question from RuWiki

Hello, everyone! Is notability rules for athletes in EnWiki really based on two simple sentences? In RuWiki we have 8 criterions for notability but we can't create article about non-High league footballer or NCAA basketball player. Now I do project of new rules and wonder to know when and how you have accepted your rules. Can you show me archives of voting? Sidik iz PTU (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I looked there are no special critieria for sportspeople; the criteria that apply are WP:N and the 2 sentences at WP:ATHLETE. Some have discussed expanding it into something more like WP:MUSIC, but no one has actually done the work. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaatsu

I've started a tiny stub at Kaatsu, and tagged it as belonging to this project. Not sure if I'm meant to notify you of this, or what :) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessary, but thanks anyway. :-)

Bodyboarding

Somehow I landed at Bodyboarding and, to this non-knowledgable reader, it looks a mess. A great deal of vandalism has been reverted, and a great deal has been missed. I particularly noticed all the references to someone named "Nick Fahy", and I wonder if he exists. Someone who knows the topic, or at least knows how sports articles should be written (and policed), ought to take a look at it. Thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 07:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Schools DVD

Anyone feel up to commenting on Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Sports? Thanks --BozMo talk 07:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Information about a team's individual seasons

I've learned something over the past few months. Deletionists run this site. They run it.

What I feel is that a college basketball team should have a page for each season, as long as someone is willing to contribute that effort. I notice that someone is doing this for the Drake Bulldogs men's basketball team. It's a valiant effort, and it is certainly useful.

However, all it takes is one deletionist, an afd, and a few friends, and it's grinded to dust. Is there ANY consenus whatsoever on if we're allowed to even do this? I see conference tournament pages, and sometimes even THOSE get nominated for deletion (An Atlantic 10 one barely survived AFD from a lazy deletionist).

Hey, I'd love nothing more than to write a lot of Missouri Valley Conference articles. I just have ZERO CONFIDENCE the articles would remain after two years. Has there been any discussion, and WILL any of that discussion hold up against deletionists? 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination backlog

There's still a significant backlog of sports articles at wp:good article nominations. We do not have enough regular reviewers to deal with all the nominations received, and unfortunately certain topics seem to suffer more than others. The good news is that the review process is relatively simple and any registered user is more than welcome to participate. If you'd like to help out, simply pick an article you haven't contributed to from the sports and recreation list and see if it meets every good article criteria. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the good article nominations talk page or even directly on my talk page. --jwanders^Talk 21:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Parkour article dispute

The article Parkour (which is part of this project) is currently undergoing mediation by WP:MEDCAB due to a dispute over whether a criticism section should be included in this article, whether criticism should be merged into the text of the article, and if so how much. Your input at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-11 Parkour and Talk:Parkour#Safety and response to criticism section would be appreciated.--S.dedalus (talk) 07:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while, and some articles wait up to 50 days for a review. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject Sports is to try to find time to review History of the Ottawa Senators (1992-) and WrestleMania X. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review (or you'd rather review something else altogether), it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Amateur sports in Westmount, Quebec

Westmount, Quebec is an historic community in Montreal. I just removed some content about flag football and Atom and Bantam, that's 9-10 and 13-14 years of age, minor hockey. Now an anon IP has added content on a 7-17 years of age swim program. Before I remove this and feel like an ogre, is there a guideline on amateur/minor sports in articles? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of articles in scope

According to your latest article count, you have 941 articles tagged for your project. Yet WP:WikiProject Football alone has 27,000 articles. So should all 27,000 of these be tagged for WikiProject Sports also, or are there particular criteria that should be met? It just seems a strange mismatch to be - I'm guessing that this is purely due to the Sports project having fewer members than the football one. --Jameboy (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a guideline for assessing article to this WikiProject, would be a waste of time if all football articles and others were assessed on this too. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 15:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. We have child projects for a reason. This project is for overall coordinate of sports articles and templates and guidelines and conventions and so forth, and very secondarily for articles on sports for which there is no relevant child project. If all sports articles were tagged as being directly within the scope of this project, that would be several millions, and nothing would ever get done about anything. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of team colors in templates

I normally don't worry about the common use of team colors in sports-related templates, but I just came across a case that perhaps highlights a broader problem; a bunch of templates using bright red text on a green background. My first reaction was simply "eww, that hurts my eyes" - I have a hard time focusing enough to actually read the words. But then it struck me that this combination is also problematic for those with red/green colorblindness. I ran the page through an online filter that illustrates the effect:

As you can see, the text becomes almost illegible for an entirely different reason; they're almost the same luminescence.

Is there some sort of guideline somewhere on the use of team colors in templates? There are general guidelines on the use of colors (Wikipedia:Colours) that advise against this sort of thing, but I figured if the problem is really widespread I should bring it up here. Bryan Derksen (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:COLOURS is the guidelines that determine what is and is not appropriate for color schemes. In this case, these templates (not all of them, but clearly many of them) are a violation and should be changed, for everyone's sake. My recommendation, if you still want to involve the colors somehow, is to do it like the university infoboxes. See University of Alaska Southeast for an example. L'Aquatique[talk] 20:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with L'Aquatique. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New template

Hey there, WP:Sports. I've put together a template for stadiums that have moved out of the "purposed" phase and have had physical construction started.

Use it as necessary! Thanks! -- Me^Holla! 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

InterProject Collaboration

Hey there! As you may or may not know. An Afd has been brought up to discuss the notability of Ohio High School Athletic Conferences. It was proposed that WikiProject Ohio lead an effort to get these articles up to par. We are asking for help from Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools as well to help us get these articles uniform. An effort headed by JonRidinger and Frank12 is in place to jump start this process. Any help your project could lend would be greatly appreciated. As a main point for the effort we have the talk page which is located at Wikipedia:OH/HS Football Conferences. Thank you for your time! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/HS Athletic Conferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion invitation

The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project is having a discussion of college football player notability in reference to professional football leagues. All members of your project are invited to join in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Players notability expansion?.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo

The Taekwondo article is having a content dispute (running for over 6 months now) and I wondered if anyone from here might be interested in helping to calm things down and help clean up the article as it has been hacked rather badly with reverts and attempts to merge opposing versions. The main debate is on the origins of the art, the talk page gives a good introduction to the views held by the editors, any help would be most appreciated. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Categories for mergers

A heads-up that anyone may be interested in biographies of sportspeople: There is a conversation focused on merging Category:Athletes from Omaha, Nebraska and Category:Omaha sportspeople to Category:Nebraska sportspeople located here. • Freechild'sup? 02:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable. If there are eventually enough such article, they could be in a subcat called Category:Omaha sportspeople. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

Resolved. I added C-Class assessment. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 15:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Pickup/public/informal games

I noticed wikipedia has no article on public/informal/pickup games. Is there a reason for this, or shall I begin an article? Hotshot977 (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is one somewhere; I've read it. I don't recall what it is called though. Try searches on relevant terms. I do believe that it is discussed at exhibition game, in reference to (I think) association football, as well. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

GA sweeps of sports people

Just dropping a note to anyone with a sports person related Good article that passed GAN before last August. These articles have now (finally) come up for GA Sweeps and over the next few weeks I will be assessing them against the Good article criteria. Please make sure that any GAs you maintain or may have taken to this stage conform to the current criteria. They will need a high standard of referencing, compliance with MOS where possible, a good standard of prose and properly tagged images. I am especially looking out for articles on living people that have not been maintained in the last year and may have libellous or simply messy statements inserted without referencing or format. Formal reviews will begin soon, to see a list of articles coming under review and their current status based on my quick "instareview" see this list. Please direct any questions to my talk page as it is possible I will miss them if posted here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-BCS college football bowl games

Do pages like 2006 Champs Sports Bowl and 2006 Armed Forces Bowl for example need their own pages? Why aren't these low profile bowl games all merged into one article. Lets say the 2006 Bowl Season. Then one for 2007. On this central list there can be links to main articles for the big BCS bowls. --GroundhogTheater (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So much for Wikipedia being a group effort, no one has replied to this user's concern. I agree. Merge all the non-important bowl games. -- UWMSports (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that! We didn't reply here because it is covered under Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. Most college football editors check there first, and here a lot less for obvious reasons. Anyway, all bowl games (past and present) are considered notable per WP:CFBGAMES. And even if we didn't have the guideline on the essay, there still is more than enough independent reliable sources about the two bowl games in question to more than warrant an article for each.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1315 articles are assigned to this project, of which 204, or 15.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Project 119

Project 119 is currently a redirect to China at 2008 Games article, I think this should be turned into a real article, since the project affects sporting competitions both before and after the Beijing Games, and has a significant impact on international sport. A Canadian program of similar intent has an article: Own the Podium. 70.51.10.38 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Have at it. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about ignoring of naming conventions raised at WT:NCP#Sports "revolt"

Resolved

 – Issue quasi-settled at WT:NCP, new page for this at WT:NCSP.

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Sports "revolt". Numerous WP:SPORTS child-projects are pretending that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) guidelines don't exist. Needs to be resolved one way or the other. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Guideline: NOTED PLAYER

After protracted disputes at soccer articles about what constitutes a noted player for team X and how to verify that, I have drafted a proposal about noted players, but I've tried to make it general to all sports, as the issue has sort of spilled onto other sports articles. Apologies that this notification is a little late, but it completely slipped my mind to post here, although I had spammed the village pump and wp:note, with so far surprisingly very little interest. See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER and give opinions, or not. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. what links here gives an idea of the sports currently affected, as the proposal is linked from a template drawn up for tagging team articles percieved to have this flaw. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, I was just now looking over WP:CUENOT (which I haven't worked on much in a while) and thinking to myself, "y'know, 95% of this could be generalized to all sports"... I think we should combine forces on this. NB: There is no huge hurry - the sports side of things has been without a notability guideline for a long time, and the sky has not fallen down. We do need one, but having already taken a wild idea from a page full of rants to a well-accepted guideline (WP:MOSFLAG), I do have a fairly solid grasp of the process involved. Probably 95% of things that get proposed as guidelines are rejected by the community, but I think we can do this since I know how to do it properly. For the short term, I would advocate working on what you have going, sleep on it a lot and return to it and keep fleshing it out - with a great deal of respect for WP:N and other aspects of WP policies and broader guidelines - and between us we can probably come up with a valid subject-specific notability guideline that will be well-accepted at WP:AFD, etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

We've been struggling with this at WP:CFBPLAYER for college football players. It's pretty easy to tell if a player is notable after completion of four years of play, but what makes a player notable during those four years of play? There's some points in the essay noted above that I think would lead to a large number of college football players (such as being a team statistical leader) that may not really be ready for notability on Wikipedia. Great job in putting it together!--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

At the hockey project we decided since technically all players are notable that are on wikipedia that you can't just say one player on a team is more notable than others so we just stuck to facts and removed notable player sections and made it a section about players inducted into the hall of fame that have played for that team. That way its quantitative and fact based rather than opinion based because no matter what criteria you choose it will be opinion based. So we don't call it a notable players list and we only list players that went into the hall of fame. We have a seperate section of award winners. -Djsasso (talk) 17:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

That meets the guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, but my point is you have a number of things on this guideline that are arbitrary and opinion based. What I was trying to say is just stop calling it notable players or the equivalent. So that you don't even need a guideline saying what should be there, because the section name itself becomes self explanitory. -Djsasso (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the sections has not succeeded, so this approach would not work, and merely leave the dispute unresolved, certainly with regard to soccer. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

So you change the names of the sections to have a finite inclusion. The section is still there but it becomes obvious that one player does belong on the list or one player does not belong on the list. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"Sport(s) deaths" categories

Category:Deaths in sport and the various "Sport(s) deaths in <country>" categories define their scope as "People who have died as a result of injuries sustained while participating in, training for, or spectating sporting events." I was wondering: What defines a sporting event? As an example, Sonny Bono is currently included in Category:Sports deaths in the United States. As I understand it, Bono died while participating in recreational, non-competitive skiing. Does that mean he shouldn't be included in the category? DH85868993 (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This should be taken to WP:CFD for clarification. Just the fact that the cat. names are inconsistent is a red flag. If the categories were kept (and they might not be - we don't have a Category:Sex-related deaths, Category:Deaths by allergic reaction, etc., etc., etc. - their scope would need to be defined more clearly. Is it deaths relating to sport[s], or is it deaths during public sporting events? I.e., I am basically echoing your question, but saying where the answer is. :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at Wikiproject tennis

Resolved

 – Just a pointer to another discussion.

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table). The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Use non-sponsor version, per WP:SPAM, WP:UNDUE, etc., and the only draft guideline on this topic specifically so far (initially written for cue sports but intended to eventually be genericized to an all-sports style guide), WP:CUESPELL#Naming of tournaments and other events. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sports diplomacy

The ever-present effects on sports and politics didn't have an article. I've just created Sports diplomacy which others may find a good read and to add more to. Lihaas (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea! I hope you are making redirects to it from semi-obvious titles like sports and politics, sport and politics, politics and sport, etc., etc. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

There is a WP:AFD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West that is sports related. Editors in your project may wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Sportsperson

I've created a new generic infobox called {{Infobox Sportsperson}} for use in biographical articles about sportsmen and sportswomen competing in sports that do not have a specialized biographical infobox. Comments on how the infobox may be improved are welcome at the template talk page. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Sports

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Large number of AfD's in progress

There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project. Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. This large volume is really more than we can handle in such a short period of time and the project asks for your input. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

UNLV Rebels

An editor is claiming that UNLV Rebels lacks notability and should be deleted. They have removed sections that I have restored. I'm not really interested in sports, but can a few of the project members look at the article and maybe add a few more references? Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

MedCab case

MedCab has a backlog of cases. Anyone can volunteer as an informal mediator. I was wondering if an active member of WikiProject Sports could adopt Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-07 Steffi Graf. Thank you for any assistance! Vassyana (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please help

I feel really stupid lol but how do i join ??cheesepuffsaretasty!!! (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just add your name to the list of participants, and participate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Page merger

I was trying to merge the Sports diplomacy and Nationalism and sport pages as they are quite redundant. I'm not sure they get a lot of views, but what do others think about this merger proposal? Lihaas (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'd genercize it further to Sports and politics until such time as there is so much information that the article becomes bloated and has to be split up per WP:SUMMARY. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Street hockey rink deminsions

I'm trying to start an indoor soccer/street hockey facility and looking for some dimensions on rink sizes. Both the soccer from a full soccer field and hockey rink. They say it depends on players on the field. Indoor soccer that I've seen is played 6 v 6 but now they have full size also 11 v 11. which could be used also as 2 smaller fields. I need dimensions if possible. Thanks need all the help I could get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.121.124 (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ask at the hockey and soccer projects, I would say. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Friendly notice of an Article for Deletion

The article Paul LaVinn is being considered for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn.

This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Wikipedia a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way. Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice. If you feel this notice is a violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing please let the posting editor know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Major notability discussion

ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Defunct leagues

Is there no project for defunct leagues, like USHL or ABA? If so, this, this, this, this, and this could use tagging, for a start... TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 05:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but their respective sports wiki projects cover them. WP:HOCKEY handles the USHL and IPHL and IHLs for sure. -Djsasso (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heck most sports articles don't actually get tagged with this project anymore, just their own sports project really, unless there is no project for that sport. This project seems to mostly just be a centralized discussion area. -Djsasso (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As it should be. WRT the original question: A project like that would flop, because no one is intensely interested in defunct leagues in general, across multiple sports. Rather, they are interested in defunct leagues in the sports they personally care about. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorising more articles - the simple way

I expect some harsh opposition and loyal support for this, but WikiProject Sports has less articles in it's categories than the 'decendant' WikiProjects and taskforces. I would expect it to be the other way round. Therefore, I propose that on all decendant WikiProject banners, I think we should insert our banners into theirs (make sure it goes on top of them though). It's not perfect, but it is a good idea to start with... Would love to know your thoughts! 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 21:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

HECK NO. That would totally defeat the entire point of descendant projects! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

New "Naming conventions (sportspeople)" drafted

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) (WP:NCSP) has been drafted. Hopefully it will provide a more cohesive and less divisive place to resolve the remaining disputes, and more importantly will cover the sometimes thorny issues of sportsperson article disambiguation more clearly. This should reduce the load on WT:NCP and the sports-related verbiage in WP:NCP. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)