Portal talk:Current events/Sports/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Calendar box Incorrect

It is showing September instead of December, I am unsure how to fix ...--Billymac00 (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Table tennis

I'm involved in the Table tennis WikiProject. I noticed that you have included in your current sports event the recent European Table Tennis Championships, and consequently updated the article of the championships. This is great !!! Since there are several other Table tennis events, I would ask you how to point out an ongoing event to your Portal. As an example Table Tennis world cup will be played in the next two weeks. How can I include these events to your portal ? Cialo (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Slimming the sidebar

The sidebar is very tall and requires much scrolling. What would you say about slimming it down to simply listing ongoing events? Starting from the top, the Sudirman Cup is an ongoing event, but the matches aren't. Of course, this would lose information, but it would make it much more navigable and anyone who's interested in the setup of the tournament can just click it. —JAO • T • C 10:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't really need here what matches are happening in the next few days. –Howard the Duck 10:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
What do you suggest exactly? To leave just the competition headline in the "future events"? Such as:
Looks like a good solution. —JAO • T • C 19:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
What about events that are due to start within the next 2 days but continue beyond it? How should they displayed in the "upcoming events" section once they also enter the scope of "ongoing events"? See EuroBasket Women 2009, for example--Nitsansh (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it should be listed any differently in "ongoing events" than it was in "upcoming events". Today's games are in the main page anyway, and anyone interested in knowing what games are played tomorrow will hardly be inconvenienced by clicking the tournament link. And once they are ongoing, there is of course no reason to still list them in "upcoming events". —JAO • T • C 04:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

New flagless flag template

{{cc3}}. These can be used here especially for tennis and/or racing blurbs. –Howard the Duck 03:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The main factor in this issue should be: Which is more recognizable by the common reader: countries' flags or 3-letter codes? I think it's the flags. They were being used long before country codes were introduced. There's also the fact that there is one flag for each country, but not necessarily one 3-letters code... Also, from design point of view, the flags add some colours to this article...--Nitsansh (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There was some discussion (press page up) (involved you and me) and another (press page up) (comment by User:Zzyzx11) that there were too many flags, or the flags were in inappropriate places. Mostly, I'd add flags on national team results (default) in these formats:
As a rule, when the flags along with the text, it is generally frowned upon. There was some discussion about the overuse of icons here that's why I asked the flag templates project to come up with a flagless template that used the country data templates.
Note that {{cc3}} can use full country names: (CHN), (China), (People's Republic of China). Although the primary purpose is to use the TLAs for conformity that all links have 3 letters. –Howard the Duck 16:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
So that means you suggest to use flags for national teams, which mostly have templates that display flag and country name, like  England (cricket),  England (football),  Great Britain (basketball),  Great Britain (ice-hockey) etc. and 3-letters code for individual athletes or clubs? like Manchester United F.C. (ENG) or Andy Murray (GBR)...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If you use the {{cc3|countryname}} template with the full country name,like (United States), it produces the same result as (([[countryname]]) like (United States). What's the benefit of it then?--Nitsansh (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If the flags are close together such as Manchester United England 2-1 Spain Barcelona, it'll appear as the same in format as national teams so in default that should be allowed; however in cases where the flags are now "joined together" by scores, that's where I'd draw the line.
As for the full country name, I'd ask if the TLA would display automatically whatever the parameter is. For the meantime, a lot of the editors here use the TLAs anyway (out of convenience) so I don't see what's the problem. For now. –Howard the Duck 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that flags have their place such as the "Manchester United England 2-1 Spain Barcelona" example. This slimmed TLA solution is very nice for many other situations though. When adding shooting results I haven't been particularly satisfied with the over-colourful combinations of {{Gold1}}, {{Silver2}}, {{Bronze3}} and three national flags. I've considered using the {{(1)}} template line for less colour, but they're specifically highway markers and anyway, even in black and white, it feels like too much graphics. So keeping the {{Gold1}} but dropping the flags seems like the best solution there. —JAO • T • C 19:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Month grid (continued from archive)

The problem seems to be the absence of <div> tags.--Nitsansh (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it for this month. If anyone has spare time... the problem has apparently started in December 2009, so there are 6 months bach to fix...--Nitsansh (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Regions' Cup

The 2009 UEFA Regions' Cup is due to start within the next few days and lasts for about a week. It's only for amateur regional teams but it is an official UEFA tournament, so would it be noteworthy enough to have on this page when it's happening? I don't mind if it isn't important enough or anything to get a mention with everything else on here, and it'll still have a current event note on the top of its article, but I was just wondering. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ17 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. –Howard the Duck 03:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Eliminated teams

NFL season is about to begin, and UEFA World Cup qualifying is ending so I reckon we should exclude games exclusively between teams that are eliminated, for like, no one cares anymore. –Howard the Duck 15:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

current events

Is there a reason that professional wrestling events are not listed? At this very moment a event is being held and pro wrestling, even though it is scripted, is still a technical sport.--WillC 00:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Pro wrestling is not a sport. It is sports entertainment. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It is still classified as a sport. The only difference is it is predetermined. It still takes elements of sports and incorporates them.--WillC 02:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Also, sports entertainment is what World Wrestling Entertainment classifies itself as. Other companies classify themselves just as pro wrestling. At one point, pro wrestling was not predetermined. It was a full fledged sport, just as real as football, boxing, etc.--WillC 02:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Women's World Open Squash Championship

The ongoing 2009 Women's World Open Squash Championship should be included in the portal. Can someone put it in ? Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 20:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can add it yourself. –Howard the Duck 05:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The codings are too difficult to read Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 07:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Try the following format: * Name {{flagicon|Country}} def. Name {{flagicon|Country}} score. I'm not into squash but this might help.–Howard the Duck 10:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

World Records

What do you guys think about adding world records that are beat in this page? Swimming, athletics, shooting, archery, speed skating, etc? For example, a lot of swimming short coure world records were beat these past few days during the 2009 FINA Swimming World Cup, but since we are not adding the complete results, at least the world records would be interesting. Saulopro (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Recategorization

Each month's archive of Portal:Current events/Sports (e.g. November 2009 in sports) being unceremoniously dumped in Category:Sports and games portals, all sorted under "C", was getting pretty messy, and in 5 years would have drowned out all other members of the category. They've been moved to Category:Sports and games current events portals (as has the "live" one), and should be filed there henceforth. They are sorted by date (e.g. [[:Category:Sports and games current events portals|2009-11]]). The new category is itself categorized thus: 

[[Category:Current events| ]]
[[Category:Sports and games portals|Current events]]
[[Category:Current events portals|Sports]]

Something similar should almost certainly be done for Portal:Current events/Science and technology, Portal:Current events/Canada, etc., etc. But, those are outside my personal editing range, and my to-do list is very long, so I'll leave that to others. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

NASCAR Nationwide Series

A question - is a second tier domestic competition really sufficiently notable for coverage in this portal? --Falcadore (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably not. Jmlk17 21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
See my suggestion immediately below. If a North America subportal is created, not only could the Nationwide Series go here, but also the Truck Series. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Are we still going to include the series? Nascar1996 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Subportals revisited

Given the size of the August portal — according to a recent comment on my talk page, it came in at over 370 MB — I believe that it's time to consider revisiting a previous issue. I suggest that it's now time to SERIOUSLY consider creating several subportals. My first pass on a suggested structure (feel free to add or modify any you wish):

  • Current events/Sports — Use only for major events of international importance.
    • Current events/Sports/North America — Specifically for US and Canada domestic events.
    • Current events/Sports/Latin America
    • Current events/Sports/Europe
    • Current events/Sports/Asia–Pacific
    • Current events/Sports/Association football
    • Current events/Sports/Basketball
    • Current events/Sports/Motorsport

Anyone up for this? I think it's a move that's long overdue. — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this page is way too big. Racklever (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The page is way too big, but I don't know if using "international importance" is the best method to trim it. There's a lot more reader interest in the BCS football championship than there is in the world petanque finals. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
What would be the best criterion then? October is shaping up to be even bigger, especially with the Commonwealth Games going on this month. I checked about a minute ago and it was already at 140K... and we're only a week into October! — Dale Arnett (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe shelve some of the sports that don't have a top level of fan following, like futsal and snowboarding. And I realize that soccer is the world's most-popular sport, but how many of our readers follow the CONCACAF Champions League or the Copa Libertadores de Fútbol Femenino? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone?

2010 IAAF Continental Cup? --Domjanovich (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Volleyball

Why isn't volleyball events not notability enough to be displayed in the Curren events Portal:Current events/Sports/Sidebar‎?

Who decide this? Are there statistics? Why is Bobsleigh or Luge notable enough and volleyball is not? Why are you continuesly deleting volleball entries?

I think you are abusing. Osplace 01:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing against volleyball. Club competitions in general are not listed in details in this section, mainly because there are multiple games on each matchday so it would make this section too long. The European volleyball clubs competitions are still listed in the "current seasons" section. Decisions about what should be included in this portal are usually made by concensus among the regular editors. You are welcome to join us on a regular basis. Regardless of that, there's no policy that is itched in stone on Wikipedia and every matter could be subject for discussion and reviews. This is what talk pages are made for.--Nitsansh (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
so it would make this section too long, you mean in the sidebar, but is still ok to include the results in details in the main? I don't want to proceed doing so if there is no "concensus among the regular editors". Os 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I discussed that matter recently with CsWolves. The problem is that the pages become very long and months exceeding 200KB are becoming standart. So we are more selective now about adding new events than before. The World Cup competitions in various winter sports are included for several years and once something becomes standard it's hard to terminate it. Not to mention that adding more events increase the workload of regular editors. --Nitsansh (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
As Nitsansh states, the pages are becoming longer and longer by passing month. If we have day-by-day breakdowns of the volleyball tournaments then that will only bloat it more. It's not always about quantity, but quality. You can't have every single thing in the sporting world, hence we compromise. While it may not please everyone, it's just how the consensus rolls I'm afraid. Cs-wolves(talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok I see, if start editing volleyball tournaments i will become a standard and will be hard to terminate it. The I will add the volleyball tournament and will edit it in a regular basis. Os 18:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood. What we say is that as the portal became very long allready, we would not allow more events than allready exist, unless we consider them very important. As far as European Club competitions are concerned, me and Cs-Wolves agreed that only the Final Four stage will be reported. This doesn't mean that we don't like volleyball or consider it not important sport. We did report in previous years on events like World and continental championships, as well as the World League, World Grand Prix and European League, and intend to continue with those when the time comes. In my notability scale, national team competitions have higher importance than club competitions.--Nitsansh (talk) 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I feel bitten. I should take a little time off. Os 00:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian Premier League

Why is IPL not included here. IPL is not a local/domestic tournament. It has players from all the major cricketing nations. Also is NASCAR and NBA can be here, then IPL definitely can be. ashwinikalantri talk 08:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still a glorified domestic league; very similar to the Twenty20 Cup and Friends Life t20 in the United Kingdom and the KFC Twenty20 Big Bash in Australia, both of which also have "overseas players". If you add in every game, then the portal becomes over-stressed size-wise. Each of which in the past have had only Finals Day listed, and thus IPL should be the same. Simple as that. Cs-wolves(talk) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Then why are NBA and NASCAR included? They too are domestic sports. ashwinikalantri talk 18:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
NBA is only listed in the playoffs end of the season. Same with NHL and college football. But more people are likely to follow those sports rather than a domestic cricket league. NASCAR is different as it's listed on a race-by-race basis and is restricted to the top two series. IPL just isn't important enough to list in detail, and is also excessively bulky. Simple as that. Cs-wolves(talk) 18:28, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Not Important enough?! Thats an understatement. Cricket is the 2nd most popular sport in the world. India on the other hand has world'd 1/5th population. Its extremely popular in these parts of the world including Australia, South Africa, UK, South East Asian countries. Infact sports like NASCAR are the one that are unpopular outside the US. ashwinikalantri talk 08:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I've no problem with the knockout stage being included -- that's standard practice for many other competitions on this page. But including every game in the group stage is a bit much, imo. It seems it isn't practice to include round robin-stage results; the Premier League, arguably the most important sporting league in the world, doesn't have any single-game results posted here. Instead, it just covers the final result of the league (I assume). This isn't a page to catalogue every result of every game; that would be verbose and unhelpful. It's just for an overview of current events in the sporting world. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 10:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Cs-wolves; it's just a domestic tournament that while popular is no more popular than NFL and the Premier League to the English Wiki. Maybe the knockout stage, but certainly not the group stages. Harrias talk 14:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Agree with what has been said. Listing all fixtures would make it too bulky, possibly list the knockout stages, but certainly not every single match. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
While I concur that IPL is probably not significant enough for coverage, I do however also note that American College competitions, as second or third-tier levels of their respective sports are not deserving of coverage, and similarly NASCAR Nationwide series, a second-tier level series of a domestic league DEFINATELY should not be covered. --23:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

relevancy of college "world" series?

my guess is a not relevant enough event about some childs friendly playing some sport in some province of some country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.56.168.197 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it's the national championship of university-level baseball and softball. "College", in the US, is used for tertiary schools (higher education), not secondary schools. And to merely call it a "friendly" shows a total lack of understanding of college sports in the US; they may be technically amateurs, but without the sort of academy systems common in other countries, college sports are a major form of player development. The individuals may not yet be notable for articles, but the competitions most certainly are. oknazevad (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Friendly or not, it's a purely domestic league and should not be included on that basis. We start including domestic leagues, especially at collegiate level, this portal will blow out massively as the senior domestic football leagues of 160 countries are included. --Falcadore (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Calendar matrix linking

Has anyone else noticed the calendar at top right of the page has stopped working again? Did someone change the format of the date links? --Falcadore (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

It works OK for me, at least for September.--Nitsansh (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

NFL in Portal:Current events/Sports?

Low relevancy to stay there, somebody disagree? or should we add every games of The Football League? or others National League (disambiguation), believe me there is a lot of its--Feroang (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Domestic football competitions should not be included, or else this portal will blow out massively. International football competitions only please. --Falcadore (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It's a transcontinental league that is by far the top level of competition in its sport, so I'd be more willing to give it a pass.oknazevad (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
see the Portal_talk:Current_events/Sports#Indian_Premier_League, we agree on "we do not show-post every single game of local-national leagues, just the playoff if there is some.--Feroang (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
we should stay this portal at it is today, world cups, continental cups, bianual events and some finals of some local top level championships--Feroang (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I say it's long past time to create a sub-portal dedicated solely to North American sports. I've suggested it at least once, and IIRC a number of other users have done so as well. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Or a North American Portal which includes sports would perhaps be more appropriate. North American sports is perhaps to narrow for a dedicated portal. --Falcadore (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion has come up on several occasions before. The NFL is not comparable to a European domestic soccer league. Having spent time in both Europe and the U.S., I can say that individual NFL games are a much bigger deal in the U.S. than are individual domestic soccer games in Europe. In fact, I would say that the only soccer games in Europe that generate as much attention from the public there as NFL games do in the U.S. are national team games such as the Euro tournament. In addition, there are only 16 regular season NFL games a year for each team, far fewer than the number of games played annually by European soccer teams. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevertheless it has been established several times that we do not show the week-by-week games of ANY domestic league. NFL falls into that comfortably. If we add NFL then we add IPL, and the top tier football code of EVERY sporting nation is eligible.
NFL is not comparable to a European domestic soccer league. Of course it is. And you have made no attempt other than a personal opinion to substiate this. The NFL does not get a leave pass because it is big. The implication of that sort of sentiment is that United States leagues are to be treated differently. It has not been demonstrated anywhere that US leagues get preferred treatment. Unless it can be domenstrated that US leagues are to get preferential treatment by any method that is not the unsubstantiated personal opinion of a editor then they should be removed forthwith. --Falcadore (talk) 02:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Falca wins--Feroang (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
There is no rule, nor should there be, that all "domestic" sports events have to be treated the same, or that "international" sports events should always have priority. What determines the "importance" of a sporting event is not the "internationalness" of the event. Do you really believe that the world junior korfball championship is bigger than the Super Bowl? What determines the importance of a sporting event for our purposes are things like the TV audience; the size of the crowd and ticket demand; the amount of money involved; the degree of media coverage; interest among Wikipedia readers; the importance of the game in the league or competition; and the number of games in that competition. Now if you insist, I can demonstrate statistically that an NFL game with 20 million viewers is a bigger deal than a CONCACAF Champions League game between DC United and Tegucigalpa FC, but I would hope that that's readily apparent. I maintain that if we have to remove the NFL and NCAA Top 10, we have to remove every event that is less of a big deal, which would be basically almost everything else. (I think we ought to move this page to Wikinews anyway frankly.) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
but the sex life of Kurnikova is more interesting, you can see it in People magazine, should we post it in here? and FC Barcelona put near 80.000 fans in his stadium at least 20 times at year, is that relevant enough to Current events/Sports?, we do post the Super Bowl, this portal is going okey with just the playoff of nationals leagues, now in October 2011 we are posting the MLB postseason.--Feroang (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
For European soccer, we post every Champions League game and even every Europa League game, including the ones between teams from places like San Marino and Liechtenstein. The Champions League is the relevant comparison to the NFL, not La Liga. If the U.S. was divided into itty bitty little countries like Europe, the NFL would be an "international" league. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In the Champions League we see the best 3 teams of France, in the NFL playoff we see the best 12 teams of USA, sound equal to me. and of course we follow the Asian Champions League, involving the best 4 teams from China but we never wrote about the current date of the Chinese Super League and his 16 teams--Feroang (talk) 02:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If the U.S. was divided into itty bitty little countries like Europe, the NFL would be an "international" league. So we are back to giving US leagues a leave pass simply because they are big and that the USA is special. --Falcadore (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It's not about a country getting a "free pass." It's about including only the events of the most "importance" out of all the sporting events in the world. Yes, the U.S. is bigger than Belgium, so we shouldn't treat the biggest U.S. and Belgian sports events as the same thing. We have the Australian Rules Football playoffs but not the buzkashi championship of Afghanistan. As for the Champions League comparison, Feroang's suggestion would be like including only the final knockout stage of the Champions League. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
It actually is. You've said US doesn't get a leave pass, then said US is bigger than Belgium, so it does get a leave pass on that basis. I've not said the Afghanistan buzkashi championship should not be included, I've said week-by-week coverage of NFL should not be included on the basis of consensus over IPL which is the most "important" 20-20 Cricket tournament. The two are directly comparable leading to the same solution. --Falcadore (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was the whole concept of "free passes" is misleading. We should consider the appropriateness of each event on its own based on the factors I mentioned above, and others as necessary. There are only 16 regular-season NFL games and 12-13 NCAA FBS games a year per team, so they are different from, say, the NBA, which has 82 regular-season games per team and isn't as big as football anyway. If we take off the NFL and NCAA football, we should take off stuff like the African Champions League that has infinitesimal reader interest compared with American football. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for dedicated North American portal

  • To expand on my idea above for the dedicated North American portal:
  1. I propose that ALL North America-centric sports, including league championships, should be stripped completely from the main portal and placed in a new dedicated portal. For want of a better term, call it "Portal:Current events/Sports/North America", archived to "(Month) (Year) in sports/North America" or "(Month) (Year) in North American sports". Yes, put the Super Bowl, World Series, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup, and the like in the North America portal only... although I have no real objection if events such as those are cross-posted in the main portal.
  2. The "current seasons" sidebar of the North America portal should include only North American seasons.
  3. As for the "current seasons" sidebar of the main portal, take ALL of the North American seasons out of that portal, and replace with a note such as "For North American sporting seasons, see Portal:Current events/Sports/North America".
  4. The new North America portal can include all of the NA-centric sports.
As for contents of the new portal, here's a partial list of what I think should go in there:
  • NFL: All regular-season and postseason games, plus the Pro Bowl.
  • MLB: Season openers, the All-Star Game, games with immediate playoff implications (i.e., games that clinch playoff berths, division championship, wild card), and all postseason games.
  • NBA: Season openers, All-Star Game, all playoff games.
  • NHL: Season openers, All-Star Game, Stanley Cup playoffs.
  • CFL: All regular-season and postseason games.
  • MLS: Season openers, All-Star Game (could also be cross-posted if it features an international club team, as in recent seasons), playoffs.
  • FBS football: All games featuring top-10 teams, two top-25 teams, upsets in the top 25, notable rivalry games (i.e., notable enough for their own article).
  • Lower divisions of NCAA football: All playoff games.
  • CIS football: At the very least, the entire playoff schedule; I'll let my neighbors to the north decide what else to include.
  • NCAA Division I men's basketball: For the regular season, similar criteria as for FBS football. Also, final games of major early-season tournaments (e.g., NIT Season Tip-Off, Maui Invitational). Also include all conference championship games, all NCAA tournament games, NIT semis and final, CIT and CBI finals.
  • Auto racing: Move all NASCAR results into this portal, and add the Truck Series. IndyCar will go here as well.
Essentially, everything related to North American sports (and then some) should be moved to the North American portal. As for defining "North America", I'll start with the US and Canada. If someone wants to include Mexico, no problem. I also believe that actual news events—such as those you'd find in the parent "Current events" portal, only sports-related—are grossly underrepresented in this space. Creating a North American portal would allow for more reporting of such stories in both the new portal and the parent.
Any takers? — Dale Arnett (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I am Okey with people having fun in his own thing but not pushing it to others, enjoy your independency, enjoy your own sports and leagues in your own portal--Feroang (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it's worth questioning whether this page belongs at all anymore. I like it, but it doesn't really fit with the rest of Wikipedia. Plus, it's clear there's no consensus on what belongs here. Perhaps it would be better to delete it and simply include really important sports news on the regular current events page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove football scores without consensus

I have restored the NCAA football scores to the page, where they have been for several years.

NCAA football is watched by millions of people every week in front of crowds as high as 110,000. College football is a billion-dollar industry and virtually a religion in much of the US. Of course, if NCAA football should stay, it goes without saying that the NFL should stay as well.

It would be absurd to remove American football scores while keeping on things as esoteric as women's Olympic soccer qualifying, snooker, junior figure skating and so on.

Perhaps there should be a separate "North American" page, and perhaps this page shouldn't exist at all, but as long as it exists, it should include those sports events of most interest to readers. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the status of second-tier and below sporting events have been discussed several times on this page already, perhaps the absurdity is that those events are not also removed.
Is it too much to ask that the notability of a second or third-tier domestic sporting series be demonstrated?
The format of this page is supposed to reflect Portal:Current events. It is difficult to imagine a poorer form of devolution than currently demonstrated. In its current form this portal is borderline unencyclopedic, and in its current format is much closer to Wikinews than Wikipedia. Perhaps this page should just be moved accordingly.
You do realise in its current form this page should have a References template attached to it, for a portal to be in that position is a little embarrassing. --Falcadore (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
If it calms you, Portal:Biography, a Featured Portal doesn't have a reference section. Also, looking at some view stats, the NFL season page has respectable page view stats every weekend -- compare that to the arguably more "international" Premier League, which are more or less within the same statistical "bracket". However, I'd recommend ditching mentioning teams that are in a bye week, games involving both teams that are already eliminated (at the end of the regular season), and probably limiting the NCAA Division I football to the top 10. And probably including IPL games in the future. Or probably limiting NFL and NCAA football games in the "games that count" if we're into drastically reducing the page size. –HTD 13:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This particular debate was about NCAA, a school based league, not NFL, so that particular comparison is not relevant surely. Also, Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. If it was then there would be justification for IPL, the most popular domestic league in India, a country with two-three times the population of the US. Additionally no one nation gets more 'votes' than others. So if the most popular domestic US league is included, then surely the most popular demostic sporting leagues of Romania, Swaziland, New Guinea, India, Venezuela and the Cook Islands would theoretically be just as worthy?
So if we have NFL and NCAA, let's have them all. English league, Scottish league, Irish league, French league, Spanish league, Portuguese league.
And let's make this page so long and so full of so much data that it is utterly useless as a reference source. --Falcadore (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
You do realize I'm into including the IPL -- in fact its exclusion, and the reasons, were frankly absurd. So I'd have no problem with that. I'm even open in adding all matches.
As for the football (soccer) leagues, we do list them at the end at the relevant matches either for the title or for relegation (I'm not sure on the relegation). So theoretically, we include them all. Same thing for basketball, only that the championship-clinching games are included.
This portal does boil down to a popularity contest since this will lead to the explosion of content here you so dearly fear about, and if someone will maintain those. It's not an "event" if no one cares about it. Ideally, as long as a league has a separate article for its season you can post at least their championship-clinching matches. I dunno if the top football league in the Cook Islands even has an article, so it can't be posted (I don't think a season article about football in the Cook Islands will be saved at AFD). The college basketball championships in the Philippines are winding up I'm considering of adding them, as they even had more page views than the 2011 Women's South American Volleyball Championship, which is listed here -- which pretty much makes you think if the most popular league in Niue is as relevant as the most popular league in the U.S. –HTD 15:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This whole Portal might struggle to survive an AFD. The model of how this portal is supposed to look is it Portal:Current events yet instead it is a collection of unexplained, unreferenced bullet points and pointscores that brushes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Falcadore (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a portal, they're not articles, so this portal is not necessarily under the jurisdiction of WP:NOT. Anyway, this page and the main current events portal have the same format anyway -- only that the latter is prettier. The main current events portal is also an indiscriminate list of headlines. –HTD 09:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Reboot

It is interesting to note how people think that all sports are organized identically, and that leagues from all countries in all sports in roughly the same place in their "league pyramid" (real or imaginary) have identical levels of competition, and that if a league is a step below its national "league pyramid" then all leagues of all sports higher than all of the countries' "league pyramid" should automatically be higher. That's not the case.

An example would be, ironically, American football. It would be the absurdest of arguments to say that the IFAF World Cup is the highest level of that sport. (For those who don't know, the IFAF World Cup is the world championship of American football among national teams, like their FIFA World Cup.) If we're into the reasoning that "world championships of all sports are equal to one another, and that they are higher than domestic leagues", it would seem that the IFAF World Cup is higher than the Super Bowl. Only a person living under a rock or a follower of the Japanese national American football team on steroids would tell you that.

Another would be basketball. Interestingly, FIBA (that's basketball's FIFA) calls the NBA as an intercontinental league, at par with the likes of the Euroleague and the FIBA Asia Champions Cup -- that means that the NBA champion, although it can still call themselves "world champions" per se are in FIBA's eyes, an "intercontinental champion."

As for baseball, not too long ago the International Baseball Federation (baseball's FIFA) classified the World Series champion as the "world club champion" but recently they've classified the MLB along with a few other baseball leagues as "world leagues". That means the winners of those leagues can claim of being a "world champion" but interestingly, only MLB's championship series calls itself the World Series; the others would have to content themselves as the Japan Series, Caribbean Series, Taiwan Series... heck even the IFAB rates Minor league baseball as a "world league." We've been posting NPB postseason games, right? Would people here would be thrilled to post the Triple-A World Series?

As you can see, it's illogical to say that if we're posting NCAA Division I-FBS, then we should post all games of Niue's football league, or China's handball league. Not all sports are organized identically. Well, if they're organized identically everywhere I'd consider that argument, but currently, no. –HTD 17:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of 2011 Pan American Games.

I think it is appropriate that the 2011 Pan American Games are included, because it is the second largest multi sporting event after the Olympics and is also an Olympic qualifier in 15 sports. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

of course it will in here 14th to 30th of October, but collaboration is very welcome--Feroang (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I have extensively updated the article and related information. Considering I am unfamiliar with this portal (as in editing) will someone agree to update it here? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
It's no big deal. You just have to follow the format of previous edits of a similar topic. Generally, in multi-sport events we only publish here the medal winners in individual events and medal games in team events, so there are just two generic formats.--Nitsansh (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
If you make error in format, no real damage is done. Someone will "clean" it later. But be careful to put the results right, we don't double-check them. --Nitsansh (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Pan American Games

(copied from CS-Wolves talk page)

Hi, is this event eligible for the portal:current sports events? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I think it is appropriate because it is the second largest multi sporting event after the Olympics. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I left a message on the talk page can you please respond there as well. Thanks. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I think so. Although we lack consistency regarding multi-event Games. Last year we did the 2010 Commonwealth Games, but I think we ignored the 2010 Asian Games (I might be wrong though)... this year we did the 2011 Summer Universiade, which also claims to be the second largest multi-sport events, but not the 2011 All-Africa Games. I think there should be a similar policy towards all these, I won't correct the past... As far as Pan American is concerned, I think in terms of size it's behind the Asian Games, but anyway, with strong nations like United States, Canada, Cuba, Brazil etc. it seems more notable, in particular for English speakers (the Commonwealth are also notable for the same reason). It should be noted also that Pan-Ams double up as Olympic qualifyers in many sports, so nations send their best athletes. For all these reasons, I vote in favour, but we should make some constant guiding rules to deal with such events. In fact, we should have guiding rules for all other events, so we can refer to them in cases of doubt.--Nitsansh (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Re:2011 PAGs

(copied from Intoronto1125 talk page)

Oh boy, what a question! You may have noticed on the portal talk page that there has been a lot of indifference about certain events being on the portal, and it's been getting out of hand. On the Pan American point, I, if I was in your position, would propose it on the portal talk first...just to get an ideology of who supports it and who does not. I note that the All-Africa Games that were held last month, were not recorded on the portal, but if we go back to last year's Commonwealths, they were in full. But I feel that a lot more requests by everybody will probably get closer scrutiny now, after all the feuding... Hope that helps! Cs-wolves(talk) 20:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problem with it, but just depends on the others! Cs-wolves(talk) 21:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I am in favour, but we really have a problem of inconsistence and lack of guiding rules... most rules are just like oral tradition which the regular editors like CS, Dale (who is rarely seen recently) and myself know, but newcomers have no clue about, and not even aware of the principle of notability. It's about time we discuss it in public (IE in the portal's talk page), and spend the time necessary to reach consensus about it.--Nitsansh (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is consensus in favour. Now comes the question of the format. There are 2 options: All the daily results in one section, or results in each sport under its section.

Let's suppose that on the same day USA beat Brazil 96:93 in men's basketball, while Brazil beat USA 3:2 in women's volleyball.

The first option will look like this:

Multi-sports events

The second option will look like this:

Basketball

Volleyball

Which one do you favour??--Nitsansh (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I like the second one, but Volleyball and Basketball should fall under like this:

Multi-sports events

Basketball
Volleyball


If I may opine, I like the daily results in a single section and I suggest the following format, used at the time of the 2010 Youth Olympic Games and Commonwealth Games:

Multi-sports events

So it is kept the same format as usual. What do you think? Jonas kam (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

====[[Multi-sport]]s events==== can result in "edition war" where nothing is finally saved because everybody edit at same time, ===Basketball=== and ===football=== work better, anyway I am with the team --Feroang (talk) 20:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I like more the multisports event with all the results, like the Commonwealth Games. Oscar 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 FIVB Men's Club World Championship

If the volleyball club championship for men and women is in the sidebar of the portal, why is not covered? Oscar 00:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

because too many things are happening at same time now, and we always forget something, and Vb is not my favorite sport... but you are very welcome to collaborate and add the results of it in it portal.--Feroang (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The future of this page

I guess the time has come to reassess the future of the sports current events portal. With only a few people monitoring this talk page, we've reached a dead-end as far as the football question is concerned. Furthermore, this page, which is usually little more than a list of scores, doesn't really fit in anymore with the rest of Wikipedia.

I think there are at least six options:
1. Keep the page the way it is.
2 (a). Remove all regular-season American football.
2 (b). Remove the NCAA top 10 buy keep the NFL.
3. Keep the football but remove some of the more obscure "international" items.
4. Separate the American sports into another page.
5. Move the page to Wikinews.

Personally, I'd go for option 3, but failing that, I think option 5 is the way to go.

I think we can do an RfC for help on this, but the question is how do we decide this? Do we decide the football issue first, then ask if the page should be moved to Wikinews? Or do we do it all at once? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the American football scores should not be shown. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
It's probably not fair to exclude an article with 4.3k views every gameday (on regular season; last year at the tailend of the regular season, page view stats reached 12.5k!) to be excluded while we include a similar article with a similar scope getting 2k views per gameday (on the playoffs). I'm into excluding some games though. Examples would be ditching which teams are in bye weeks and ditching games involving two teams that are already eliminated. Other than that, having NFL (and AFL, that's Aussie rules) and IPL games are OK. Like come on, we're listing the highly anticipated World Fencing Championships then there are moves to ditch the NFL completely. Are you guys serious? Really? But yeah, we should definitely cut down on some American football scores here.
I'm not into ditching "more obscure international items" too. The current inclusion standards are good, but can be improved, but we shouldn't remove leagues/events. We'd just have to decide what games from the leagues/events already in the portal that should be included. For example, shouldn't we list only the Top 10 in NCAA Football? Since there are only 10 teams in the BCS? Are we going to the list the randomwebsite.com Bowl? (Probably a bad idea.)
This is a portal, so this page should not be necessarily governed for policies that are used for articles. An RFC would be good, though. For example, should leagues listed WP:ITNR (that includes the NFL) be given a free (and by "free" I mean no one should be bitching that all scores from that league should be removed entirely) pass? If anyone wants to pursue an RFC, it'll be a good idea to post notices on Portal talk: Current events, WT:ITN, WP:CENT, and if someone's up to it, all of the sports wikiprojects. –HTD 13:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
OK, let's not do the debating yet. First I just want to know if we should go the RfC route and, if so, if we should do it all at once or do the football issue first. I'm thinking we can just do it in a single RfC. If no one objects, I'll put together a proposed background of the issue and, if that gets peoples' OK, post the RfC. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Like the Super Bowl should be shown but not regular season games. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
To specifically address User:Howard the Duck's view on NFL vs Fencing and why it is inaccurate... The World Fencing Championship is a one-off event and the biggest event for its sport for the year. It is inherently notable as an individual event. Each and every individual NFL game is not however inherently notable as each game contributes to the season as a whole. As a rough guideline, if an event cannot by summaried by its own article (in NFL's case each individual game) then is should not be listed game by game. Part of the function of the portal is to direct readers through to articles which will expand their understanding of the game. Patriots vs Packers in NFL Round 17 would never make it as a free-standing article and the contents of the portal should reflect what can hold their own as an individual article. However if that Patriots vs Packers game featured a particular event, for example the sudden unexpected death of a linebacker, then that event would probably have a case for its own article, and therefore a good candidate for mention in the portal.
Additionally Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. What gets hits in the internet can influence but not decide inclusion.
To reiterate the most important point - what governs inclusion in the portal is if the event described can sustain its own Wikipedia article. --Falcadore (talk) 23:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
@Falcadore: How frequent will the updates be done on the World Fencing Championship? Once everyday until the tournament is done? –HTD 11:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest once to indicate the champion (champions if neccessary for male/female/junior etc) rather than round-by-round update. I doubt very much there would be sufficient notability to support individual articles for each bout of the tournament. If it is not notable enough for a wikipedia article it should perhaps not be included at all. --Falcadore (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
So does this mean we'd have to ditch these UEFA Champions League group stage matches since a single match can sustain a single article? –HTD 04:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

2011 Pan American Games schedule

Anyone that is interested/has time to update the forum the schedule per date is located here: Chronological summary of the 2011 Pan American Games Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Should regular-season American football games be permitted on the sports current events portal? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC arguments and discussion

I'm going to bring the football debate to RfC. I've posted a proposed introduction below. I admit it's one-sided, so if anyone objects to it or wants to change it or add to it (to expand on the arguments in favor of a ban on regular-season American football scores), please do so before I post on the RfC page.

For several years, this page has included the scores of all regular-season NFL games and NCAA football games including at least the top 10 teams in the AP poll.

Recently, User:Falcadore began deleting American-football scores on the grounds that regular-season domestic sports should not be included. There has been no consensus to make this change: A few editors have spoken out in favor of it and a few have spoken out against it. To avoid a three-revert-rule violation, I've decided to create this RfC to address the situation.

Falcadore claimed that a consensus had been reached in a discussion about the Indian Premier League in April that domestic competitions should not be included. However, if you look at that discussion, it was very brief, included only a few editors and came to no consensus.

The argument in favor of a ban is that we do not post any other regular-season domestic competitions, such as English Premier League soccer or the Australian Football League. Therefore, according to supporters of a ban, we can't have NFL scores either.

The argument against a change is simple: It is beyond absurd to include obscure events of little relevance to any users, such as the final of the Kazakh soccer cup competition, the so-called "American football world cup" or the world korfball championships (yes that was posted) while banning, for example, the recent LSU-Alabama football game, which had an average TV audience of 20 million people and more than 5,000 Google News hits.

It is true that we do not include any other regular-season domestic competitions, but there is no reason why we have to have any hard and fast rules like "we should include all international and no domestic competitions." To say that all "international" events are more important than all "domestic" events is like saying the chairman of the Peoria County, Illinois, county board is more important than the mayor of Chicago, since counties rank higher than municipalities.

Why should American football be treated differently?:

  • Geography: If the U.S. were broken up into itty bitty little states like Europe is, the NFL would be "international" like the UEFA Champions League. But it isn't, so there is no "international" level of American football. (The above-mentioned "World Cup of American Football" is a little-known small-scale tournament in Europe.)
Soccer has several domestic leagues that are of comparable quality and importance (England, Spain, Italy, Germany, etc.). So it would be problematic to have domestic league games for one without having the other. In American football, that isn't an issue.
  • Number of games: The NFL regular season consists of 16 games per team in 17 weeks. NCAA football has about 12 regular-season games over about 15 weeks. This is far less than just about any other sport. So each individual game is more important than it is in other sports, and it takes up relatively little space.
  • Importance: The NFL (and, to some extent, big-time college football) is "bigger" than many international competitions whose group stages are included here. The NFL has $9 billion in annual revenue, has an average attendance of about 70,000 and gets about 20 million viewers for each Sunday night game. By revenue, the NFL is nine times bigger than the UEFA Champions League. The games are often front-page news.
Having lived in both Europe and the U.S., I can say from personal experience that the only European sporting events that have as much cultural resonance among the local population as the NFL and big-time college football do in the U.S. are games involving national teams, such as the Euro soccer tournament.
I am not, of course, suggesting that we remove the UEFA Champions League group stage from the portal. But I am saying that if we can include the "regular seasons" of things like the CONCACAF Champions League or the women's basketball EuroLeague that are microscopic compared to the NFL or big-time college football, we can include the NFL.
  • Consistency: We have "regular-season" (non-Chase) Sprint Cup events. We have non-major LPGA golf tournaments. We have, apparently, every competition of the top-level snooker tour. So it's not inconsistent to have every NFL game.
  • Interest: The U.S. accounts for about 45% of the English Wikipedia's readership, and Canada another 6%. Football is by far the number-one spectator sport in the U.S. So there is a ton of reader interest in the NFL and big-time college football, and if we are to serve our users, we should include the results.

Finally, it's important to note that there's no rule or reason why we should have to treat every sport or every country equally, any more than the regular Current Events page has to pay as much attention to the mayor of Warracknabeal as to an event involving the mayor of Melbourne or Sydney. Falcadore has argued that posting regular-season NFL scores would be "giving the US a free pass," as if this is some kind of competition among countries. It isn't.

I maintain that if we remove the NFL and the most-important college football games, we should also remove every event that is of less importance in terms of things like financial impact, broadcast audience, reader interest and attendance. That would mean pretty much blanking the page. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

You mention importance, and say the NFL (and, to some extent, big-time college football) is "bigger" than many international competitions. To some people perhaps. Questions. Do all of the other major wikipedias carry the domestic NFL results? Do all of the other major wikipedias carry domestic football soccer results? I don't know the answers, but they might help people in their deliberations here. Moriori (talk) 03:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't appear than any of the other large Wikipedias have a regularly update equivalent page. The closest appears to be the Japanese Wikipedia, whose sports page seems to have a new item once or twice a week. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
If American football games are as individually notable as you claim, and there are so few of them, there should be individual Wikipedia articles on each game should there not? Is it not part of the function of a Portal Page to provide links to pages with which the gain a greater understanding of the importance of the event? Is it not true that these game scores are not even notable enough for coverage in 2011 NFL season article? Why is this Portal considering important results its article pages consider un-important?
*Geography: If the U.S. were broken up into itty bitty little states like Europe is, the NFL would be "international" like the UEFA Champions League. - an irrelevant point, Wikipedia does not deal in what-ifs. You could just as equally argue that if the US was broken up into itty bitty little states like Europe that several of the would prefer Soccer to Gridiron, and Gridrion would not have gained the strong foothold it presently enjoys over the North American continent. Or maybe Football would not be popular at all and competitive arguing was the winter sport of preference. Or make up any argument to justify you're point of view.
But to be honest, I am past caring. This particular page appears to follow no rules. Makes not even the most rudimentary attempt to justify its existence. Do you know how many references are on this page? I counted them. Didn't need a finger. Didn't even need either thumb. This page is supposed to follow the lead of Portal:Current events in how it looks and operates.
The top of the page almost always continues a list of events which have not taken place yet, which skirts WP:NOTGUIDE. If this page is is to serve as a collection of results then a collection of blank results of events not taken place yet runs directly against this purpose as to find recent sporting results you have to travel part way down the page. It's very simple to place hide tags until such events are completed, but there has been open hostility to such a concept.
This page is either anarchy, trivia, or both, and I no longer want to be associated with it. It is my intent to not post here again, although I'll probably allow myself to be suckered back.
Is there such a thing as Portals for Deletion or Discussion? --Falcadore (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I guess if Falcadore isn't interested anymore, the debate is over... -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, now Intoronto is deleting them. I guess we'll have to do an RfC after all. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Not necessary I thought it was agreed upon that regular season match ups would not show up on the portal. However if I am wrong I see no issue with it. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 05:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there was a consensus, as you can see above. There were 3 people who spoke on one side and 3 who spoke on the other. We can do the RfC if you want. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I like the standard of only playoff of nationals leagues in this portal, not scores of regular season games of nationals leagues in this portal, and I follow this standard--Feroang (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
So you want to do the RfC? The season's almost over by now anyway (only a couple more weeks). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So much for that idea

Well, I posted the RfC and no one responded. Now what do we do? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw it now. I will read and reply later.--Nitsansh (talk) 07:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a quick note... I have raised more than once the necessity of making some sort of guidelines and policies "paper" for this portal (which some argue is not actually a portal but a news page. See section just below). Maybe I wasn't bold enough on this, but I had the impression that other editors don't see it that way. As far as I'm concerned, the specific issue of NFL and College Football is part of the bigger picture that needs clearance.--Nitsansh (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

References

(copied from User talk:Falcadore)

The practice on this page is to cite sources only for news items. If we had to add refererences for all scores there would be hundreds of them, and the articles are extremely long allready. We link all items to relevant wiki pages where (if done properly) there are sources, in case anyone need them.--Nitsansh (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Except: P:CE/S isn't being used as a portal is it? It is being used as a repository of sports scores - which is very definately news! Using the name of the space to get around article structure isn't really good faith editting. If it is being used for news purposes, it should be subject to sourcing guidelines. If the Portal was actuallyt being used for what it is supposed to be then maybe there wouldn't be thousands of entries.
Portal:Current Events, the parent of Current events sports doesn't seem to have a problem with it. Maybe it just needs to be applied to any sport result that has accmopanying description.
Nevertheless the page editting instructions do say Cite Sources. Does that need to be fixed? --Falcadore (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the rulebook is on your side, but I have been editing this portal for several years and that was the practice since then and probably from the beginning. As far as I recall, you are the second person who raised the issue of sources. As far as I'm concerned, there was never a case of bad faith in order to get around the rules. It was the format when I started editing and I didn't have a problem with it, and didn't think it should be changed. I don't think the general rule that reqires sources should be changed, but maybe it shouldn't be strictly applied. As I see it, this page functions as a portal, because from its links you can get to the detailed articles on each item, but it also functions as news article because of its day-by-day structure. It doesn't really fall into one category but a mixture of both.--Nitsansh (talk) 00:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Stricly applied? It's not applied at all. There is a references section on the page that is completely empty. So bad faith was a stretch and potentially inflamatory, but it is a possible interpretation.
If the page is supposed to act as a portal, it isn't working. It is just a collection of results with no criteria as to what should or should not be included. As a page it is absent of any control or justification. If it has any news function, incidental or intended, it needs referencing.
Look to be fair, it probably wasn't always like this, nor did it happen suddenly. It just happenned gradually happened overtime that standards slipped. That doesn't mean that should not be corrected. --Falcadore (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
What you see on the current page is just about a week with fewer items than usual, because there are few sport events on the Holidays period. You should look at previous months to see that there are usually some sources. I agree with you, though, that references are few and far between and not regularly added. I wasn't here from the beginning, and I checked the early pages and found that it began as a news article with sources on almost every line, but within a year or two evolved into the current format and shape that is being maintained for at leas five years. I have no idea who, how and why made the decisions in those days. Maybe we should ask other editors who were active at that time. It seems that the current regular editors, including myself, feel fine with this format, and I don't think it's just because of lazyness or any form of bad faith.--Nitsansh (talk) 07:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This isn't the first time I've been to this page. I think it is exactly laziness, and also most likely simply copying what everyone else does (which is also technically laziness) and it's very easy correct. That this page used to be referenced is a little condemning. Portal or not, that it is used to create content, for linking purposes or otherwise, does not preclude the requirement for references. --Falcadore (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Speaking about laziness? Really? Your also lazy and decide for the easy way by tagging this portal page with an invalid tag instead to go the the articles linked on this page and adding references. And if you see for yourself four featured portals (Portal:Comedy, Portal:Cats, Portal:Brazil and Portal:Indianapolis), you can see that neither of them has references. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 10:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
My views on why I no longer want to contribute to this page are on record elsewhere on this page. Several other portals DO have references. Where does it say it should that Portals have a leave pass?
You can remove it again if you like, I won't re-insert again because of 3R.
It is interesting that you cite Portal:Comedy, which has plenty of Portal style content, of which this Portal has none, and all of its news content is linked to content in Wikinews which this portal does not do. The Cats Portal does not provide any content, no refencing is necessary.
Comparing to those other Portals just shows how badly this portal is set up, and it is curious that you do not mention the closest stylistic portal to this one Portal:Current Events is fully referenced.
And since you also into comparing the practices of how portals operate this is a quote from the article lead of Wikipedia:Portal.
Portals are subject to the five pillars of Wikipedia, and must comply with Wikipedia's core content policies like Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Falcadore (talk) 10:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
WP:V only says, that every information have to be verifiable, but not that the source has to be on the page. And by the way you didn't sayed, which policy/guideline defines "portal style". If we would move this portal to Portal:Current sports events, than your point wouldn't be applicable. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 11:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I could also nominate this Portal for deletion on the basis it isn't actually Portal in nature, and does not even resemble in passing the guidelines of what a portal is supposed to be. Wikipedia:Portal/Guidelines#What content to include
Additionally moving the portal to a new name does not change that this page used to be referenced, indicating that it should be. --Falcadore (talk) 11:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Falcadore has a very valid point here. The current format doesn't comply to any of the requirements of a portal, as detailed in those guidelines. I must admit that I was unaware of that until now. Actually, the current format doesn't fit into any of the article categories. How and why it started and reached this format may be an interesting subject for wiki historians, but I don't think anyone is going to change the hundred or so previous articles. The issue in question is what to do from now onwards. I don't think deletion should be the solution. --Nitsansh (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Unintentionally, I found another point in Falcadore's favour. According to Wikipedia:Notability (events), routine sport events should not have a place in WP. Aplying this would eliminate at least 90% of the items here.--Nitsansh (talk) 20:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
As this really is not a portal by any description the best thing would be to move it properly into a) article space, or b) Wikinews where it perhaps most appropriately belongs. If it can't find a new home then deletion may be the only option. As it currently stands it requires slashing and burning to become a portal. --Falcadore (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean by "move into article space"?--Nitsansh (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Give it an appropriate article name, remove its Portal status and move the page to a new location and subject it to the standards that a page entirely made up of news content should instead of hiding behind a wildly inaccurate Portal. --Falcadore (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

continuation

What I think is that listing sport events by time (days/weeks/months etc.) do have a value, but listing all these results really don't... linking to the specific articles should satisfy whoever is looking for them... that's what I think a "current sport events portal" should really do... as previousely said, 90% of these results are routine events, and as such do not comply with the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (events). Certainly partial scores (like scores at stumps in the middle of Test match in cricket) or standings of ongoing events have no place in encyclopedia. I would eliminate those first of all.--Nitsansh (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The more important question I think is, do the edittors want this to be a Portal, or do they want a place on Wikipedia to store ongoing sports scores? The two are according to Wikipedia's incompatible, so the question should be put to the editors which they prefer? Perhaps it is this issue as to what the RFC should have been about. Something far more important than the routine reporting of domestic football results. --Falcadore (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
If I have to choose, I think a portal is more important. This function has no alternative in any Wiki space. The events themselves are in the relevant articles. Important events could or should be reported in Wikinews/sports which is poorly maintained. --Nitsansh (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
What drew me to this page originally was 1) the ability to see the important sports of the whole world, or at least the whole Anglosphere, on one page (e.g., Champions League, the Ashes, NFL) in one place and 2) the ability to click links to read background on the team, league or competition. I know it's not a typical page for Wikipedia. I think the issue has been the addition of more and more sports to the page (snooker, darts, etc.) which has made it unwieldy. If you look at, say, November 2008 in sports, you can see how it used to have fewer types of sports and more actual news. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
The issues you raise are about notability and NPOV. Falcadore has a more basic point: What's the definition of this page, and where it belongs in Wikispace.--Nitsansh (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Maybe in Project space under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Current events? Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk aboutabout my edits? 09:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
"Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Current events" I aprov this, I follow both Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports and Portal:Current events/Sports, if the second gonna move, move there is a nice move, the relevant is not kill the page--Feroang (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
What purpose will it serve in Project space? Other than to continue it's existance? Project apace as I understand it is organisational/administrative, not news/content. --Falcadore (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Since we still haven't figured this out yet...

Does anyone mind if I post the final week's NFL scores? This week's games determined playoff and draft positions.

I assume no one will object if I post today's college bowl games. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That okay but take out games that don't mean anything (like Chicago vs Minnesota)--Anojan12345 (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem is 13 of 16 of the games meant something as it turned out. I appreciate Nitsansh's reformatting but if we're going to emphasize news over raw scores, shouldn't we keep stuff like Indy clinching the first draft pick and Rashard Mendenhall getting hurt? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

I offer a Barnstar to everyone, who add all the missing results to this page (until the day on the update was done). Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 08:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Winter sports

Why this section is not anymore updated ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.103.26 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks to be that majority of sports related editors are too busy nowadays to edit. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 14:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The better question would be "Why didn't you update it, if it bothers you?". After all this is the encyclopedia any one can edit. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 13:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I must admit to be among those regular editors who recently didn't have the time or will (or both) to maintain this site. It requires a combined work of several editors to do it properly on a regular basis, and when someone is absent, the others may find it hard to do the extra workload. Perhaps a better coordination among the editors would help, so that each one has some tasks he/she is responsible for, and in case he/she can't do them (either temporarily or permanently), the others would be notified and the tasks could be shifted to someone else.--Nitsansh (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Portal

The portal was abandoned ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.103.121 (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

NBA and NHL playoffs

Are we allowed to add those? –HTD 12:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd say be bold and go for it. They were included last year and for previous years as well. Ravendrop 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking why this portal was abandoned. I thought someone was adding these stuff. Has the anti-US crusade here has stopped already? –HTD 15:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

What happened to this portal?

A lot of major events happening, no cover at all. What happened? Oscar 03:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

See the discussions above. I guess the prolific contributors to the portal whose pet events were targeted left; then those who wanted those offending sports results gone failed to update the portal as prolifically as those who left. –HTD 13:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why the portal is killed! If it's going well it must be gone the same way... I was here everyday. While I was working, before espn I had been opening wiki/Current events page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.233.42 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's nice to know that this page was popular... but some people had put numerous hours of voluntary work in it to make it, and for various reasons they "took their talent elsewhere", if I may quote a famous sport persoanlity these days...--Nitsansh (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Dead?

What has happened to this portal. If you take a look at the page, you can understand. extra999 (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

One minute, am I allowed to add normal international cricket series like this: England defeated West Indies, in a 3-match test series, 2-0. England won the first test by 5 wickets, second by 9 wickets and last being rain-hit, drawn. Marlon Samuels (WI) and Andrew Strauss (Eng) were made the player of the series. extra999 (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Revival or death?

If anyone is interested in reviving this portal, I might rejoin.

If not, I suggest to delete it. It's useless and an eyesore as it is now.--Nitsansh (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd say revival, I think information like this can be very useful also for the articles on Wikipedia in case they're not updated immediately and people can easily find additional information through the what links here button. LindaSportGirl (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree about it's value, but do we have the people to make it again? will it be an incarnation in the same format or perhaps different?--Nitsansh (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I think people will come by themselves as soon as they see people are updating it again. I think it's even possible by one person, but it's hard to keep up when certain other things take over, like in my situation. But with complete calendars and references they could be filled up later on as well instead of on the day itself. LindaSportGirl (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like the famous line from "field of dreams"... build it and they'll come... be bold and do it!!--Nitsansh (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I'd like to start from the 1st of July perhaps? Could you set it up so that I could start it? Right now it's a combination of May and June and adding July to the same part doesn't seem right. LindaSportGirl (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Just to say Congratulation this page is coming back to awesomeness!--Feroang (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, love doing it, it's a good way to follow everything and to improve Wikipedia. Anyone's help is welcome though, so feel free to help out :) LindaSportGirl (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations to those responsible for reviving the portal as it was before! Jonas kam (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Cats and this thread have nine lives :)

Seems it dies, then it gets revived, dies again, is revived again, dies again... :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.194.194 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:Update current event

{{Update current event}} has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events/Sports/Archive_2&oldid=1096539247"