This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the death news and notice of Eddie Guerrero from the sports page due to the fact that Vince McMahon, owner of World Wrestling Entertainment says that it is scrpited entertainment, not a sport. And I plan to move it to the news section where it rightly belongs. NoseNuggets 10:16 AM US EST Nov 16 2005
Just a thought: I think we should have the following sequence of sections in the 'pink poster' to the right of this page: 1. Current events, 2. Upcoming events, 3. Deaths in <Month>, 4. Current sporting seasons, and 5. Related pages. (Sections 3 and 4 might swap places if there's a good reason; the others should be placed in the suggested sequence.)
Yes, I admit the sporting seasons are important, but when I look up this page from time to time, I invariably scroll down to the Current events and Upcoming events sections---to see if there's any new events I'd like to follow. The updated-once-every-season Current sporting seasons section just gets in the way! I'm sure other readers experience the same frustration. Any comments? -- Wernher 18:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Division I-A college football has a much larger following than any other American sport (other than the NFL or NASCAR). Why isn't it covered here? Are there any objections to introducing coverage? Matt Yeager 04:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do not just use the term "football" on this page, as many types of football are mentioned here. Please use Football (soccer):, soccer:, UEFA: or whatever. No one type of "football" has priority. -- Mwalcoff 04:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
OR
I'd say the second option makes a lot more sense. -- Mwalcoff 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer seeing just "Football" as long as the underlying link points to the correct code, i.e. just have [[Football (soccer)|]] so the piped link just appears as "Football", which was one reason we settled on the bracketed "soccer". What does concern me rather more is that the page is currently being absolutely swamped in NFL and College (American) football matches – when we started the page we limited ourselves to results of international interest - world competitions, internationals, continental championship matches, special events like the Tour de France, etc. Specifically, we do not list regular league matches, otherwise the page would quickly be overwhelmed with hundreds of English Premier League, Scottish Premierleague, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Allsvenskan, etc matches every month. -- Arwel ( talk) 16:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
What gets me is all this MLS stuff which nobody gives a toss about and no mention of the fantastic 3:2 win for England against Argentina (let alone the Premieirship [the most closely followed domestic league competition in thr world] or the FA Cup. Fair enough it was a non-competitive match, but both sides were keen to win this "grude match". The result was significant (I'm not sure if non-competative matches re used to calculate FIFA rankings though). Jooler 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
In North America (namely the USA and Canada), we use the term "soccer" and "football" with an emphisis in Canada on the term "Canadian Football", while in Europe, Latin America and Asia they are known as "football" and "American football" respectively. That should settle any argument IMHO. NoseNuggets 10:33 AM US EST Nov 16, 2005
Football (soccer) looks butt ugly in an article and its a pain to have to pipe all the time. I fail to see why context would not sort this out? It should be pretty obvious whether american football or football are being described. There are many ohter sensible reason for using football alone as mentioned above (for example football alone for American football is an oxymoron and most people in the world use the term football not soccer). Is wikipedia trying to be a global encyclopedia or is it striving to be parochial? David D. (Talk) 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The day-of-week are added to the headings. Please use this format because (1) to be consistent with other current event pages, (2) allow the links on the calendar to be valid. Previously, those links were dead because of different heading format used in the template. -- Vsion 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know who set up the pages for the rest of the month of January, even though they weren't released until each day. The "Month-date" format was used on each one. I have since fixed them all to the "Date-month" format that is used throughout Wikipedia. NoseNuggets 10:43 AM US EST Jan 20 2006.
I'd like to point out that the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not require that numbers be spelled out. Associated Press style is to spell out only numbers under 10 and not to spell out numbers in phrases like "6 seconds."
I also don't see why the result of a Saints game in Baton Rouge should say where the game was played, since we don't write where any of the other games are played when we list results. -- Mwalcoff 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel we've gone a bit overboard with the current/upcoming events section. I mean -- Rodeo? Team handball? (Excuse my ignorance, but is team handball really that popular anywhere?)
And should we really list every World Cup winter-sports event separately? Shouldn't we just have an entry along the lines of "23 Oct.-13 March: World Cup skiing season?" -- Mwalcoff 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a bit weary of cutesy summaries for events, such as this summary of the Seahawks-Eagles game:
There's nothing wrong with a bit of color, but do you think we're going a bit overboard here? -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we agree not to include ordinary regular-season college or NBA basketball games? The Duke-Texas game was an exception due to all the hype, but including every Top 25 game may clog the page. -- Mwalcoff 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think a game where two Top 10 teams are playing should be put on there. It's a very important game. A lot more important than a game in the NFL between two teams that can't make the playoffs, wouldn't you say? TrafficBenBoy 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
How about a Basketball in 2006 page? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I just added not only Kobe Bryant's 81-point performance, but also the double-OT Supersonics-Suns game from Jan. 22 where they combined for 301 points. That topped the NFL Playoffs IMHO. NoseNuggets 5:26 AM US EST Jan 23 2006.
The Cowboys-Redskins game is still going on, but someone has already listed the final score as 35-7. Don't you think we ought to wait until the game is over before listing the final score? -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Never added anything to the news page and I don't want to mess it up but can someone do it for me? I wanted to add this story: http://hurricanesports.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/010206aaa.html
I'd like to direct people's attention to Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works, which says:
Each listed news item should be no more than one small paragraph long. Write concisely, omitting superfluous words, but grammatically, in properly formed sentences. Aim for brevity: concentrate on what happened, where, and to whom. This isn't really the best place to explain why; again, use Wikinews if you want to write such articles.
I would assume that the same guidelines apply to Current sports events. This is not the place for detail. This is the place to write that Doug Flutie kicked the first drop kick since 1941, not the place to say that the last guy to do it was Scooter McLean of the Chicago Bears in the fourth quarter of the 1941 championship game. The extra detail can go in the relevant article ( drop kick, or whatever) or on Wikinews.
If we don't keep the entries short, the page will get way too long.
Mwalcoff 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really have to italicise every single thing that happened? It's not the way it's done anywhere else... Sam Vimes 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree.
Also, could we write in an encyclopedic style? I had to rewrite the LenDell White paragraph because it read like some smart-mouth sports writer just dashed it off his Remington and yelled for a copy boy. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Another thing: Shouldn't every entry have a link to a cite, like is done at Current events? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
NoseNuggets continues to flaunt the rules of the current-events pages.
I was going to put another warning on his talk page, but I see Zoe has beaten me to it. What should our next step be?
I would recommend the third option, except for the fact that Zoe has only put a " test4" template on his page. I'm afraid WP:AIV requires that the vandal get a "test2" and a "test3" warning before the "test4" one.
Mwalcoff 03:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Though I readily concede that the hidden tag suggesting that no more than three or four deaths appear at a time and that in any case none appear more than a week after first posting, and thus that no consensus has been reached on the matter, I removed all deaths having occurred more than two weeks ago. Since the page is "Current sports events", distinct, for example, from a prospective "January sports events", it seems inappropriate that deaths should remain on the page for the duration of the month; a death that occurred on 1 January is surely no more a current sports event than an NFL game having been played on that day, which surely we would not leave on the page. If others are not in accord with this line of thinking and a consensus develops for an alternative plan, I will surely welcome the reverting of my edits. Cordially,
Joe 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Only after making the argument supra did I realize that, indeed, each month's "Current sports events" section is archived as that month's list of sports happenings, and, so, though I continue to believe that sports events or deaths having occurred weeks before do not belong in the "Current sports events" section, I recognize that it is generally the practice here that "Current sports events" should remain a summary of the month's happenings, even when these are no longer extant; I am, therefore, reverting my deletion of the "old" deaths from the relevant section. Joe 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just started February 2006 in sports for you. This one will be real crowded with the Olympics, Super Bowl XL, the start of NASCAR. Consider it a "heads up". NoseNuggets 12:31 US EST Jan 31 2006.
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed the death news and notice of Eddie Guerrero from the sports page due to the fact that Vince McMahon, owner of World Wrestling Entertainment says that it is scrpited entertainment, not a sport. And I plan to move it to the news section where it rightly belongs. NoseNuggets 10:16 AM US EST Nov 16 2005
Just a thought: I think we should have the following sequence of sections in the 'pink poster' to the right of this page: 1. Current events, 2. Upcoming events, 3. Deaths in <Month>, 4. Current sporting seasons, and 5. Related pages. (Sections 3 and 4 might swap places if there's a good reason; the others should be placed in the suggested sequence.)
Yes, I admit the sporting seasons are important, but when I look up this page from time to time, I invariably scroll down to the Current events and Upcoming events sections---to see if there's any new events I'd like to follow. The updated-once-every-season Current sporting seasons section just gets in the way! I'm sure other readers experience the same frustration. Any comments? -- Wernher 18:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Division I-A college football has a much larger following than any other American sport (other than the NFL or NASCAR). Why isn't it covered here? Are there any objections to introducing coverage? Matt Yeager 04:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Please do not just use the term "football" on this page, as many types of football are mentioned here. Please use Football (soccer):, soccer:, UEFA: or whatever. No one type of "football" has priority. -- Mwalcoff 04:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
OR
I'd say the second option makes a lot more sense. -- Mwalcoff 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer seeing just "Football" as long as the underlying link points to the correct code, i.e. just have [[Football (soccer)|]] so the piped link just appears as "Football", which was one reason we settled on the bracketed "soccer". What does concern me rather more is that the page is currently being absolutely swamped in NFL and College (American) football matches – when we started the page we limited ourselves to results of international interest - world competitions, internationals, continental championship matches, special events like the Tour de France, etc. Specifically, we do not list regular league matches, otherwise the page would quickly be overwhelmed with hundreds of English Premier League, Scottish Premierleague, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Allsvenskan, etc matches every month. -- Arwel ( talk) 16:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
What gets me is all this MLS stuff which nobody gives a toss about and no mention of the fantastic 3:2 win for England against Argentina (let alone the Premieirship [the most closely followed domestic league competition in thr world] or the FA Cup. Fair enough it was a non-competitive match, but both sides were keen to win this "grude match". The result was significant (I'm not sure if non-competative matches re used to calculate FIFA rankings though). Jooler 23:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
In North America (namely the USA and Canada), we use the term "soccer" and "football" with an emphisis in Canada on the term "Canadian Football", while in Europe, Latin America and Asia they are known as "football" and "American football" respectively. That should settle any argument IMHO. NoseNuggets 10:33 AM US EST Nov 16, 2005
Football (soccer) looks butt ugly in an article and its a pain to have to pipe all the time. I fail to see why context would not sort this out? It should be pretty obvious whether american football or football are being described. There are many ohter sensible reason for using football alone as mentioned above (for example football alone for American football is an oxymoron and most people in the world use the term football not soccer). Is wikipedia trying to be a global encyclopedia or is it striving to be parochial? David D. (Talk) 18:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
The day-of-week are added to the headings. Please use this format because (1) to be consistent with other current event pages, (2) allow the links on the calendar to be valid. Previously, those links were dead because of different heading format used in the template. -- Vsion 22:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't know who set up the pages for the rest of the month of January, even though they weren't released until each day. The "Month-date" format was used on each one. I have since fixed them all to the "Date-month" format that is used throughout Wikipedia. NoseNuggets 10:43 AM US EST Jan 20 2006.
I'd like to point out that the Wikipedia Manual of Style does not require that numbers be spelled out. Associated Press style is to spell out only numbers under 10 and not to spell out numbers in phrases like "6 seconds."
I also don't see why the result of a Saints game in Baton Rouge should say where the game was played, since we don't write where any of the other games are played when we list results. -- Mwalcoff 23:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel we've gone a bit overboard with the current/upcoming events section. I mean -- Rodeo? Team handball? (Excuse my ignorance, but is team handball really that popular anywhere?)
And should we really list every World Cup winter-sports event separately? Shouldn't we just have an entry along the lines of "23 Oct.-13 March: World Cup skiing season?" -- Mwalcoff 01:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm starting to get a bit weary of cutesy summaries for events, such as this summary of the Seahawks-Eagles game:
There's nothing wrong with a bit of color, but do you think we're going a bit overboard here? -- Mwalcoff 00:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we agree not to include ordinary regular-season college or NBA basketball games? The Duke-Texas game was an exception due to all the hype, but including every Top 25 game may clog the page. -- Mwalcoff 22:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think a game where two Top 10 teams are playing should be put on there. It's a very important game. A lot more important than a game in the NFL between two teams that can't make the playoffs, wouldn't you say? TrafficBenBoy 01:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
How about a Basketball in 2006 page? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I just added not only Kobe Bryant's 81-point performance, but also the double-OT Supersonics-Suns game from Jan. 22 where they combined for 301 points. That topped the NFL Playoffs IMHO. NoseNuggets 5:26 AM US EST Jan 23 2006.
The Cowboys-Redskins game is still going on, but someone has already listed the final score as 35-7. Don't you think we ought to wait until the game is over before listing the final score? -- Mwalcoff 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Never added anything to the news page and I don't want to mess it up but can someone do it for me? I wanted to add this story: http://hurricanesports.collegesports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/010206aaa.html
I'd like to direct people's attention to Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works, which says:
Each listed news item should be no more than one small paragraph long. Write concisely, omitting superfluous words, but grammatically, in properly formed sentences. Aim for brevity: concentrate on what happened, where, and to whom. This isn't really the best place to explain why; again, use Wikinews if you want to write such articles.
I would assume that the same guidelines apply to Current sports events. This is not the place for detail. This is the place to write that Doug Flutie kicked the first drop kick since 1941, not the place to say that the last guy to do it was Scooter McLean of the Chicago Bears in the fourth quarter of the 1941 championship game. The extra detail can go in the relevant article ( drop kick, or whatever) or on Wikinews.
If we don't keep the entries short, the page will get way too long.
Mwalcoff 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Do we really have to italicise every single thing that happened? It's not the way it's done anywhere else... Sam Vimes 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree.
Also, could we write in an encyclopedic style? I had to rewrite the LenDell White paragraph because it read like some smart-mouth sports writer just dashed it off his Remington and yelled for a copy boy. User:Zoe| (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Another thing: Shouldn't every entry have a link to a cite, like is done at Current events? User:Zoe| (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
NoseNuggets continues to flaunt the rules of the current-events pages.
I was going to put another warning on his talk page, but I see Zoe has beaten me to it. What should our next step be?
I would recommend the third option, except for the fact that Zoe has only put a " test4" template on his page. I'm afraid WP:AIV requires that the vandal get a "test2" and a "test3" warning before the "test4" one.
Mwalcoff 03:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Though I readily concede that the hidden tag suggesting that no more than three or four deaths appear at a time and that in any case none appear more than a week after first posting, and thus that no consensus has been reached on the matter, I removed all deaths having occurred more than two weeks ago. Since the page is "Current sports events", distinct, for example, from a prospective "January sports events", it seems inappropriate that deaths should remain on the page for the duration of the month; a death that occurred on 1 January is surely no more a current sports event than an NFL game having been played on that day, which surely we would not leave on the page. If others are not in accord with this line of thinking and a consensus develops for an alternative plan, I will surely welcome the reverting of my edits. Cordially,
Joe 01:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Only after making the argument supra did I realize that, indeed, each month's "Current sports events" section is archived as that month's list of sports happenings, and, so, though I continue to believe that sports events or deaths having occurred weeks before do not belong in the "Current sports events" section, I recognize that it is generally the practice here that "Current sports events" should remain a summary of the month's happenings, even when these are no longer extant; I am, therefore, reverting my deletion of the "old" deaths from the relevant section. Joe 01:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just started February 2006 in sports for you. This one will be real crowded with the Olympics, Super Bowl XL, the start of NASCAR. Consider it a "heads up". NoseNuggets 12:31 US EST Jan 31 2006.