Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 13
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Why is one a disambiguation page, while the other is a re-direct?
Why is Western Conference Finals a disambiguation page & Eastern Conference Finals a re-direct? Should they both be the same? GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like this was fixed yesterday by Primefac, so they both redirect to Conference Finals DAB page now. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, sorry, I must have closed this tab before I implemented the edit. Redirs for both made sense, so figured I'd be bold and just do it. Primefac (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:National Basketball Association#Requested move 28 February 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Basketball Association#Requested move 28 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. -- ZooBlazer 06:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Australian rules football
Australian rules football has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Wellie wanging#Requested move 3 March 2024
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Wellie wanging#Requested move 3 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:50, 4 March 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portland Men's Roller Derby. — Grand'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)
- 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)
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 Wikipedia: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...
orPremiership 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)
- @Primefac:, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @Primefac:, 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)
- 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)
- Are you enquiring about things like Bulls (rugby union), where the first sentence is
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 Wikipedia: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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @Primefac: 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)
- @Tbennert: You mean something like this, e.g. for Denmark:
and Denmark. For other countries it's next only a matter of creating the team pages for that specific country, e.g. Brasil: 
and Brazil, or Spain: 
and Spain. 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)
- 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)
- 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 {{ffb|AUT}} 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)
- Tbennert, 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)
- I did that(Template:Flag football national team), typed {{ffb|AUT}} 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)
- 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)
@Tbennert:If you want I can create the following templates:
| Template | Links to | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| ffb | "<counry> men's national flag football team" | Shows name and flag of the country (flag left) |
| ffb-rt | "<counry> men's national flag football team" | Shows name and flag of the country (flag right) |
| ffbicon | "<counry> men's national flag football team" | Shows only flag of the country |
| ffbw | "<counry> women's national flag football team" | Shows name and flag of the country (flag left) |
| ffbw-rt | "<counry> women's national flag football team" | Shows name and flag of the country (flag right) |
| ffbwicon | "<counry> women's national flag football team" | Shows only flag of the country |
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)
- @Primefac: 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}}?
- 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)
- 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)
- @Primefac: 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
 Hello, |