This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
What should be done with the bolded sentence, that is:
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this seems to have died out without a clear consensus for anything. So, despite misgivings about this whole series of events, given nothing else seems to work, hopefully this exercise in brain-storming will attract a bit more attention. As it stands (and as it previously stood, before the larger RfC), the second sentence is at odds with the rest of the guideline, since it seems to imply that subjects do not need to meet GNG if they "meet the sport specific criteria set forth below". The fact it is bolded also brings a lot of attention to this somewhat misleading statement. Previous discussion on this does not seem to have yielded any positive consensus ( Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_48#Bolded_sentence_again). There are multiple possible courses of action, and I'm not quite sure which to pick. I think, at the minimal, that the sentence should be unbolded, no matter what else is done (to remove the extra emphasis this gives on it). After that, there are multiple possible choices, which include: removing it entirely (it is somewhat redundant with the next two paragraphs, in particular the third one, which mentions the necessity for articles to still meet basic policies such as WP:V - i.e., the need to be based on reliable sources); rewriting it, either partially or entirely from scratch; or even moving it elsewhere on the page (for example, to that Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Applicable policies and guidelines section). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
? Either that or remove it. Giant Snowman 18:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .
Yes, exactly...: Sorry, I'm not sure if your response is in agreement with what I posted or not. Are you referring to THEREMUSTBESOURCES when a subject meets NSPORTS, or when they don't even meet an SNG? — Bagumba ( talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
waving arbitrary criteria aroundand VAGUEWAVES. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
or remove per GiantSnowman. This reflects the current state of the guideline and RfC outcome. – dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .
Comment - since the relevant Notability guideline for athletes, in the absence of an SNG os NBASIC rather than the GNG, I wonder if we could avoid replacing one inaccurate statement with another? If people really can't bear to reference NBASIC for some reason, there is a readily available alternative, which is to bolster SPORTBASIC with sufficient precision that nobody feels the need to reference a standard external to NSPORTS. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me juxtapose two things, the first is a quote from the top of WP:Notability, the second is my condensed paraphrasing of what's included in the current and proposed version of the sentence:
See my point? North8000 ( talk) 21:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
conveniencefor editors. There is nothing about sports biographies that means that the adjudication rules that apply to all other biographies should not aly to them, and WP:CONLEVEL suggests that any LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary is, from a policy standpoint, null and void. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) fixed by Newimpartial ( talk) 02:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
depending on the subject matter domain) is missing from but presupposed by the opening of WP:N - a belief that happens to fit seamlessly with the rest of the Notability ecosystem - than to believe in "calibration", which doesn't have explicit policy support anywhere and which is directly contradicted by the way a good deal of policy language around Notability actually works. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp, and passing NCORP? More precisely, what element of NCORP do you think these corps might be failing? TBH, this sounds like a semantic rather than a real difference. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In short, in the initial section above, there seem to be two options which have garnered significant support (with some being ambivalent about which one exactly should be preferred):
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
It would be good if we good iron out which one is best. I think, in either case, FAQ no. 5 will be rendered obsolete: whether the number should be kept (to preserve historical links) and how exactly to implement that will also require a bit of tinkering. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I just made these edits to provide more balance to our Equestrian sports. They were reverted by User:JoelleJay who then proceeded to add their own changes, which I reverted and began this discussion. As a content creator, NPP reviewer/participant at WP:NPPSCHOOL, member of the WP:WikiProject Equine, among other projects, I do believe the Equestrian notability requirements are outdated and need quite a bit of work. I am a former NCHA Judge and at expert level relative to stock horse competition, horse racing and I also am quite familiar with rodeo. The material I added is relative to stock horse exhibitors, and stock horse competition (western-style horsemanship events)'s j at the professional, non-pro and collegiate levels. There is more to the equestrian topic than Hunter-Jumper competitions, and Olympic events, which is very narrow view of equestrian sports. If there is an objection to what I've added, then please provide your comments below. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as the various supports here and below, it'd help if people paid better attention as to what's being discussed. Permit me to clarify this for those who seem unclear on the concept: Atsme's proposal is NOT TALKING ABOUT EVENTS. The proposal addresses individuals. Whether or not the events in which the equestrians compete are notable is utterly irrelevant. Ravenswing 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Important notice - the opposes above are responding to the discussion in the section above, not what I have proposed which is this diff. This discussion has strayed off topic relative to what I've proposed - I am against inclusion for simply participating. See the section above, and my comment there. As for the hobby comment in this discussion, see. Phil Rapp, a cutting horse competitor who has earned over $9 million dollars in NCHA competition - not quite a hobby. And there are many more that have millions - this is exactly why we need what I've proposed. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There is more to the equestrian topicThere is also far more to cricket than international matches between Test-playing nations, and similarly for other sports. Not a reason to add more stuff simply because it exists and might appear important to people involved in it. OP might have too much of a (both literal and figurative) horse in this race... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, the practical effect is that the criteria here have long been too loose for many sports and encouraged the creation of articles which don't meet the notability guidelines and by the same token also fail other policies such as WP:NOT or WP:NPOV. Thus the push to make sure criteria actually reliably predict GNG and not be participation awards.
If editors somehow believe equestrian sports revolve around tournaments in Olympic amateur eventsThat seems as dubious a strawman as any I've seen. Most of the objections here have nothing to do with the nature of the events but with the lack of examples and evidence how people meeting such criteria actually meet GNG. "It seems important to people involved in it" has never been a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is a general encyclopedia intended for a general audience. There are a lot of other things in other sports or other fields of human activity which seem to those involved in it but which are not encyclopedically notable, or tend not to always be. As I was saying above, you appear to have too much of both a literal and figurative horse in this race. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport.Why should we undercut this to include all winners in all event categories of a collegiate nationals (not to mention a non-notable conference championship) for a sport with under 30 participating universities across DI to DIII?
An equestrian that has won a major National Championship, or World Championship Top Ten title in their respective equestrian sportand removed
Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level).
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor.with
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses, such as AQHA Hall of Fame Horse, NCHA Hall of Fame Horse, the mounts of at least one Olympic medal, World Equestrian Games championship competitor, and NCHA Triple Crown Winner.JoelleJay ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
creative professionals are likely to receive sigcov based on their body of works,- not "individual works of creative professionals are likely to receive SIGCOV based on the notability of the creator". This is a classic case of "A implies (or at least, tends to,) B, but B does not imply A"; as trivially shown to be inaccurate even with examples where the "creative professionals" are otherwise very notable persons who have had coverage in reliable sources for over a century, but where some of their works are not. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
An equestrian that has won a major National Championshipto the original
Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level: The latter indicates there is no consensus on which competitions are eligible, but that those considered the "highest honor" in their discipline probably do confer SIGCOV to winners. The introduced clause only asks for "major" national championships without retaining the constraints or clarification: are we to understand that "major" is sufficiently specific to exclude whichever competitions were implied in the original? Or has coverage changed such that we can now generalize SIGCOV presumption to a larger set of national winners? The addition of
World Championship Top Ten title in their respective equestrian sportis not given any justification.
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitorwith
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses, such as AQHA Hall of Fame Horse, NCHA Hall of Fame Horse, the mounts of at least one Olympic medal, World Equestrian Games championship competitor, and NCHA Triple Crown Winnerdramatically expands the qualifying pool to include two US-specific Halls of Fame and a distinction afforded by another US organization, with no rationale for how these are equivalent to the original two international achievements.
Individual inductees into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Famevs the proposed
Individual inductees into a national equestrian Hall of Fame for the respective national or global organization, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame, American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame, and National Cutting Horse Association#Hall of Fame. The latter gives more examples of acceptable Halls of Fame, but it is not clear whether they all meet the prior qualification of
sports with international-level competition. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
At the end of April 2022, a section on Obsolete Criteria was added. That section was then deleted, with a comment that it didn't provide any useful information. However, there were redirects to that section, including from WP:NAFL and WP:NGRIDIRON. These redirects still exist, but point to a non-existent section in the guideline, and so direct to the whole guideline with no information for the reader. The section was useful in that it provides an anchor for old redirects, and the removal of the section was a good-faith error. Either the section should be restored, or a search-and-destroy operation to locate and remove the redirects is needed, or something else should be done. The dangling redirects are not a good idea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
There's no dispute case or anything like that, I just see a large amount of these.
This section says:
I see a lot of "stats only" professional team season articles with only a pablum token sentence or two of prose. If one interprets #2 as an SNG criteria, then it conflicts with #1. Or if one interprets #2 as merely advice on building an article (not a part of the SNG criteria), then it is not in conflict with #1 but really doesn't belong in a SNG. Also #2 contains what could be interpreted as an impossible-to-judge hypothetical "can be" Could y'all tweak that section to clarify? Thanks. North8000 ( talk) 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I should distill it to an example. As a NPP'er I look at a brand new article for a season for a top level professional soccer team in a medium sized country. It's a "stats only" article with one "stats only" source. Does it pass the SNG for existence as a stand alone article? North8000 ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
redirecting articles on clearly-notable seasons simply because the "prose" section amounts to < 50% of the total bytes contained in the article.The guideline doesn't provide such a clear, nearly mathematical criteria. It doesn't even use "mostly". Maybe rewriting it as
Team season articles should contain substantial and well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.would avoid such confusion? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
For a new page, I'd expect some indication that the season has coverage beyond a stats database. One indication would be citing a few sources of coverage by independent, reliable sources.— Bagumba ( talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
I'm an active NPP'er. I was an advocate for getting rid of the "participation only" SNG. The result of which makes our job harder but IMO was a good move. A self-conflicting SNG also makes our job harder (actually makes it impossible regarding implementing the SNG properly) Which is why I'm here. :-) North8000 ( talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What if you combined the two provisions into: "Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose." North8000 ( talk) 19:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose.The quality of the article isn't what determines notability. Its whether or not it has received significant coverage that determines if we should have an article on it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
BeanieFan11, when I wrote it I already understood that per the strict logical parsing, such as yours, the only thing that matters is GNG and this provision and all SNGs have no reason to exist. But, unless you want to eliminate all SNG's I think that a proposal like mine is consistent with what SNG's defacto are...a way for bypassing GNG and conditions on using that way. Also it may be in line with the original intent of those two apparently conflicting provisions....that you can use the "season for top level professional team" bypass if the article is mostly well sourced prose. North8000 ( talk) 21:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
.a way for bypassing GNGSuch use of SNGs is, at best, deprecated; particularly given the recent NSPORTS RfC. NSEASONS should be a guide which prevents excessive-stats-and-routine-local-coverage articles. That's why I think we need to emphasise that articles should contain substantial prose (i.e. both "large in size" [without fixing a mathematical and absurd percentage] and "worthwhile; important" [to prevent having articles about the run-of-the-mill "season of the local Littletown high school team which gets a trivial mention in the Sunday newspaper"]); while similarly giving a good recommendation what to do with articles which fail to achieve this). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That said, the notion that articles must consist primarily of prose (or that prose must be "large in size") imposes a requirement that is absent in any other realm of Wikipedia.I think having an end-goal (i.e. "featured-article status", if one likes) which might be different from the present state of some - or most - articles within a topic isn't that problematic. Notability guidelines are also more concerned with what "could" be written given existing (or assumed) sourcing than what "currently is" (per WP:NEXIST). If a season article - let's suppose it is one of the stereotypical season articles with one introductory sentence and some stats table - is brought to AfD, and there are sources found which provide enough coverage from which one could write substantial prose [I don't know, the season was a stand-out performance or otherwise stands out from the rest of the WP:ROTM bunch), then it should be kept. Conversely, if the same article is brought to AfD, and in this counter-example the sources are only local news or routine match play-by-play reports (even if such reports exist for the whole season), then it should be deleted or redirected. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I do have other concerns about some sports articles, but my mission in this thread (with my NPP hat on) is narrower.....to get this apparent self-conflict in the SNG tweaked so that the apparent self-conflict is fixed so that we will know how to to implement the SNG. And, the result should answer this question: Whether or not the SNG gives a temporary bypass to GNG for a stats-only season article on a top level professional team in a medium sized country. North8000 ( talk) 23:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
If there is not consensus to dump NSEASONS altogether, then we really ought to resolve the issues raised above by (a) specifying which leagues warrant stand-alone season articles, and (b) getting rid of the "majority prose" clause. Here is a first shot at doing that:
Stand-alone articles should only be created on individual seasons of sports teams where significant coverage exists in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual seasons of teams in the following leagues:
Association football: Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Eredivisie, Argentine Primera División, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Major League Soccer, Primeira Liga, Liga MX, Russian Premier League, Austrian Football Bundesliga, Belgian First Division A, Swiss Super League, Ukrainian Premier League, Super League Greece, Süper Lig, Danish Superliga, Belgian First Division A, Scottish Premiership, Israeli Premier League, Croatian First Football League, Czech First League, FA Women's Super League, National Women's Soccer League, Frauen-Bundesliga, and Primera División (women)
Gridiron football: National Football League, Canadian Football League, American Football League, All-America Football Conference, and NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision
Basketball: National Basketball Association, American Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, EuroLeague, Liga ACB, National Basketball League (Australia), Lega Basket Serie A, Greek Basket League, and Israeli Basketball Premier League
Ice hockey: National Hockey League, Kontinental Hockey League, Swedish Hockey League, Liiga, and Czech Extraliga
Baseball: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, and Negro Major Leagues
Cricket: Indian Premier League, Big Bash League, Pakistan Super League, T20 Blast, Caribbean Premier League, Mzansi Super League, Bangladesh Premier League, and Lanka Premier League
Rugby Union: Premiership Rugby, Top 14, Japan Rugby League One, and Super Rugby
Teams in other sports and other leagues (including collegiate teams) may also qualify for stand-alone season articles depending on the depth and extent of significant coverage received.
Team season articles should include substantial and well-sourced prose. They should not be bare lists of players or statistics. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
Cbl62 ( talk) 12:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Notability is independent of WP:GACR compliance.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.
Once again the list of association football leagues is too narrow. Giant Snowman 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.Separate articles for each league or team season might not the best way to cover the corresponding history. isaacl ( talk) 00:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I met someone at a party this weekend who seemed somewhat dismayed not to have a WP article once I started talking about my WP experience. I asked her was she an All-American (she said honorable mention), I asked was she an Olympian (no), I asked did she make the finals in her event at the US Olympic trial (no). She said her records stood for a long time and such. After some digging I determined that she was the winningest female swimmer in Big East Conference (1979–2013) history (as of 2005) with 5 individual championships and 14 relay championships, plus she was a member of 4 team championships. It does not seem that she was ever Big East female swimmer of the year. In her best year she was the 100 meter backstroke and 200 meter backstroke champion and was on four Big East Champion relay teams. When she was hitting 1:58 in the 200 Natalie Coughlin was doing 1:51s and she does not seem to have made the finals in any NCAA or U.S. Olympic trials event. Is she notable?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Would she be about the minimum accomplishment to be deemed notable based solely on swimming accomplishment regardless of the press.Where are you getting the idea that this is a notability criterion?? There is NO automatic notability from any athletic achievement "regardless of the press"; per NSPORT a subject must meet GNG and this must be demonstrated in the article with at least one independent secondary RS containing SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been trying to get feedback related to this topic in a couple of places ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Medals_sections_of_infoboxes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Swimming#Medals_in_the_infobox) to no avail. Since the topic of this post was notability and one of the quickest ways for a reader to determine notability of a subject is to scan the infobox, maybe I can get some feedback here. The issue is medals in the infobox. I am trying to understand what is Kosher. I have seen and used age-limited events such as Youth Olympic Games, Universiade, FIBA Under-17 Basketball World Cup and regional championships such as FIBA Under-16 Americas Championship, NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships. After seeing Olivia Smoliga's infobox with NCAA championships, I added that content to Emma Reaney's and Randall Cunningham II's infoboxes. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA (LC & SC) aquatics events ( see here). These are for YMCA competitors who are between the age of 12 and 21 who have not represented any post high school institutions. Hecking has 3 career 1sts (LC), 4 2nds (SC) and 2 3rds (SC). Is it Kosher to include this in a medals element of an infobox.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)}}
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
What should be done with the bolded sentence, that is:
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.
RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
The previous discussion on this seems to have died out without a clear consensus for anything. So, despite misgivings about this whole series of events, given nothing else seems to work, hopefully this exercise in brain-storming will attract a bit more attention. As it stands (and as it previously stood, before the larger RfC), the second sentence is at odds with the rest of the guideline, since it seems to imply that subjects do not need to meet GNG if they "meet the sport specific criteria set forth below". The fact it is bolded also brings a lot of attention to this somewhat misleading statement. Previous discussion on this does not seem to have yielded any positive consensus ( Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_48#Bolded_sentence_again). There are multiple possible courses of action, and I'm not quite sure which to pick. I think, at the minimal, that the sentence should be unbolded, no matter what else is done (to remove the extra emphasis this gives on it). After that, there are multiple possible choices, which include: removing it entirely (it is somewhat redundant with the next two paragraphs, in particular the third one, which mentions the necessity for articles to still meet basic policies such as WP:V - i.e., the need to be based on reliable sources); rewriting it, either partially or entirely from scratch; or even moving it elsewhere on the page (for example, to that Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 8#Applicable policies and guidelines section). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:21, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
? Either that or remove it. Giant Snowman 18:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .
Yes, exactly...: Sorry, I'm not sure if your response is in agreement with what I posted or not. Are you referring to THEREMUSTBESOURCES when a subject meets NSPORTS, or when they don't even meet an SNG? — Bagumba ( talk) 12:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
waving arbitrary criteria aroundand VAGUEWAVES. Newimpartial ( talk) 14:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
or remove per GiantSnowman. This reflects the current state of the guideline and RfC outcome. – dlthewave ☎ 12:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline .
Comment - since the relevant Notability guideline for athletes, in the absence of an SNG os NBASIC rather than the GNG, I wonder if we could avoid replacing one inaccurate statement with another? If people really can't bear to reference NBASIC for some reason, there is a readily available alternative, which is to bolster SPORTBASIC with sufficient precision that nobody feels the need to reference a standard external to NSPORTS. Newimpartial ( talk) 20:16, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
Let me juxtapose two things, the first is a quote from the top of WP:Notability, the second is my condensed paraphrasing of what's included in the current and proposed version of the sentence:
See my point? North8000 ( talk) 21:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
conveniencefor editors. There is nothing about sports biographies that means that the adjudication rules that apply to all other biographies should not aly to them, and WP:CONLEVEL suggests that any LOCALCONSENSUS to the contrary is, from a policy standpoint, null and void. Newimpartial ( talk) 21:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC) fixed by Newimpartial ( talk) 02:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
depending on the subject matter domain) is missing from but presupposed by the opening of WP:N - a belief that happens to fit seamlessly with the rest of the Notability ecosystem - than to believe in "calibration", which doesn't have explicit policy support anywhere and which is directly contradicted by the way a good deal of policy language around Notability actually works. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
under GNG, except with applying the tougher nature-of-source standard from NCorp, and passing NCORP? More precisely, what element of NCORP do you think these corps might be failing? TBH, this sounds like a semantic rather than a real difference. Newimpartial ( talk) 22:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
In short, in the initial section above, there seem to be two options which have garnered significant support (with some being ambivalent about which one exactly should be preferred):
The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
It would be good if we good iron out which one is best. I think, in either case, FAQ no. 5 will be rendered obsolete: whether the number should be kept (to preserve historical links) and how exactly to implement that will also require a bit of tinkering. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:48, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
I just made these edits to provide more balance to our Equestrian sports. They were reverted by User:JoelleJay who then proceeded to add their own changes, which I reverted and began this discussion. As a content creator, NPP reviewer/participant at WP:NPPSCHOOL, member of the WP:WikiProject Equine, among other projects, I do believe the Equestrian notability requirements are outdated and need quite a bit of work. I am a former NCHA Judge and at expert level relative to stock horse competition, horse racing and I also am quite familiar with rodeo. The material I added is relative to stock horse exhibitors, and stock horse competition (western-style horsemanship events)'s j at the professional, non-pro and collegiate levels. There is more to the equestrian topic than Hunter-Jumper competitions, and Olympic events, which is very narrow view of equestrian sports. If there is an objection to what I've added, then please provide your comments below. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
As far as the various supports here and below, it'd help if people paid better attention as to what's being discussed. Permit me to clarify this for those who seem unclear on the concept: Atsme's proposal is NOT TALKING ABOUT EVENTS. The proposal addresses individuals. Whether or not the events in which the equestrians compete are notable is utterly irrelevant. Ravenswing 21:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Important notice - the opposes above are responding to the discussion in the section above, not what I have proposed which is this diff. This discussion has strayed off topic relative to what I've proposed - I am against inclusion for simply participating. See the section above, and my comment there. As for the hobby comment in this discussion, see. Phil Rapp, a cutting horse competitor who has earned over $9 million dollars in NCHA competition - not quite a hobby. And there are many more that have millions - this is exactly why we need what I've proposed. Atsme 💬 📧 23:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
There is more to the equestrian topicThere is also far more to cricket than international matches between Test-playing nations, and similarly for other sports. Not a reason to add more stuff simply because it exists and might appear important to people involved in it. OP might have too much of a (both literal and figurative) horse in this race... RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 02:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, the practical effect is that the criteria here have long been too loose for many sports and encouraged the creation of articles which don't meet the notability guidelines and by the same token also fail other policies such as WP:NOT or WP:NPOV. Thus the push to make sure criteria actually reliably predict GNG and not be participation awards.
If editors somehow believe equestrian sports revolve around tournaments in Olympic amateur eventsThat seems as dubious a strawman as any I've seen. Most of the objections here have nothing to do with the nature of the events but with the lack of examples and evidence how people meeting such criteria actually meet GNG. "It seems important to people involved in it" has never been a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, which is a general encyclopedia intended for a general audience. There are a lot of other things in other sports or other fields of human activity which seem to those involved in it but which are not encyclopedically notable, or tend not to always be. As I was saying above, you appear to have too much of both a literal and figurative horse in this race. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 23:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Have won multiple NCAA Division I national championships as an individual in an individual sport.Why should we undercut this to include all winners in all event categories of a collegiate nationals (not to mention a non-notable conference championship) for a sport with under 30 participating universities across DI to DIII?
An equestrian that has won a major National Championship, or World Championship Top Ten title in their respective equestrian sportand removed
Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level).
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitor.with
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses, such as AQHA Hall of Fame Horse, NCHA Hall of Fame Horse, the mounts of at least one Olympic medal, World Equestrian Games championship competitor, and NCHA Triple Crown Winner.JoelleJay ( talk) 21:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
creative professionals are likely to receive sigcov based on their body of works,- not "individual works of creative professionals are likely to receive SIGCOV based on the notability of the creator". This is a classic case of "A implies (or at least, tends to,) B, but B does not imply A"; as trivially shown to be inaccurate even with examples where the "creative professionals" are otherwise very notable persons who have had coverage in reliable sources for over a century, but where some of their works are not. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 22:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
An equestrian that has won a major National Championshipto the original
Some but not all winners of national-level championships, particularly those considered the highest honor within a particular discipline or horse breed competition (especially where there is no significant international championship level: The latter indicates there is no consensus on which competitions are eligible, but that those considered the "highest honor" in their discipline probably do confer SIGCOV to winners. The introduced clause only asks for "major" national championships without retaining the constraints or clarification: are we to understand that "major" is sufficiently specific to exclude whichever competitions were implied in the original? Or has coverage changed such that we can now generalize SIGCOV presumption to a larger set of national winners? The addition of
World Championship Top Ten title in their respective equestrian sportis not given any justification.
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses including the mounts of at least one Olympic medal or World Equestrian Games championship competitorwith
A horse breeder who was the breeder of record for many notable horses, such as AQHA Hall of Fame Horse, NCHA Hall of Fame Horse, the mounts of at least one Olympic medal, World Equestrian Games championship competitor, and NCHA Triple Crown Winnerdramatically expands the qualifying pool to include two US-specific Halls of Fame and a distinction afforded by another US organization, with no rationale for how these are equivalent to the original two international achievements.
Individual inductees into a major equestrian-oriented national hall of fame dedicated to sports with international-level competition, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Famevs the proposed
Individual inductees into a national equestrian Hall of Fame for the respective national or global organization, such as the United States Show Jumping Hall of Fame, American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame, and National Cutting Horse Association#Hall of Fame. The latter gives more examples of acceptable Halls of Fame, but it is not clear whether they all meet the prior qualification of
sports with international-level competition. JoelleJay ( talk) 19:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
At the end of April 2022, a section on Obsolete Criteria was added. That section was then deleted, with a comment that it didn't provide any useful information. However, there were redirects to that section, including from WP:NAFL and WP:NGRIDIRON. These redirects still exist, but point to a non-existent section in the guideline, and so direct to the whole guideline with no information for the reader. The section was useful in that it provides an anchor for old redirects, and the removal of the section was a good-faith error. Either the section should be restored, or a search-and-destroy operation to locate and remove the redirects is needed, or something else should be done. The dangling redirects are not a good idea. Robert McClenon ( talk) 14:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
There's no dispute case or anything like that, I just see a large amount of these.
This section says:
I see a lot of "stats only" professional team season articles with only a pablum token sentence or two of prose. If one interprets #2 as an SNG criteria, then it conflicts with #1. Or if one interprets #2 as merely advice on building an article (not a part of the SNG criteria), then it is not in conflict with #1 but really doesn't belong in a SNG. Also #2 contains what could be interpreted as an impossible-to-judge hypothetical "can be" Could y'all tweak that section to clarify? Thanks. North8000 ( talk) 12:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I should distill it to an example. As a NPP'er I look at a brand new article for a season for a top level professional soccer team in a medium sized country. It's a "stats only" article with one "stats only" source. Does it pass the SNG for existence as a stand alone article? North8000 ( talk) 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
redirecting articles on clearly-notable seasons simply because the "prose" section amounts to < 50% of the total bytes contained in the article.The guideline doesn't provide such a clear, nearly mathematical criteria. It doesn't even use "mostly". Maybe rewriting it as
Team season articles should contain substantial and well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players.would avoid such confusion? RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 16:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
For a new page, I'd expect some indication that the season has coverage beyond a stats database. One indication would be citing a few sources of coverage by independent, reliable sources.— Bagumba ( talk) 00:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
I'm an active NPP'er. I was an advocate for getting rid of the "participation only" SNG. The result of which makes our job harder but IMO was a good move. A self-conflicting SNG also makes our job harder (actually makes it impossible regarding implementing the SNG properly) Which is why I'm here. :-) North8000 ( talk) 14:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
What if you combined the two provisions into: "Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose." North8000 ( talk) 19:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Season articles for top level professional teams are usually notable if they consist mostly of well-sourced prose.The quality of the article isn't what determines notability. Its whether or not it has received significant coverage that determines if we should have an article on it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
BeanieFan11, when I wrote it I already understood that per the strict logical parsing, such as yours, the only thing that matters is GNG and this provision and all SNGs have no reason to exist. But, unless you want to eliminate all SNG's I think that a proposal like mine is consistent with what SNG's defacto are...a way for bypassing GNG and conditions on using that way. Also it may be in line with the original intent of those two apparently conflicting provisions....that you can use the "season for top level professional team" bypass if the article is mostly well sourced prose. North8000 ( talk) 21:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
.a way for bypassing GNGSuch use of SNGs is, at best, deprecated; particularly given the recent NSPORTS RfC. NSEASONS should be a guide which prevents excessive-stats-and-routine-local-coverage articles. That's why I think we need to emphasise that articles should contain substantial prose (i.e. both "large in size" [without fixing a mathematical and absurd percentage] and "worthwhile; important" [to prevent having articles about the run-of-the-mill "season of the local Littletown high school team which gets a trivial mention in the Sunday newspaper"]); while similarly giving a good recommendation what to do with articles which fail to achieve this). RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 21:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That said, the notion that articles must consist primarily of prose (or that prose must be "large in size") imposes a requirement that is absent in any other realm of Wikipedia.I think having an end-goal (i.e. "featured-article status", if one likes) which might be different from the present state of some - or most - articles within a topic isn't that problematic. Notability guidelines are also more concerned with what "could" be written given existing (or assumed) sourcing than what "currently is" (per WP:NEXIST). If a season article - let's suppose it is one of the stereotypical season articles with one introductory sentence and some stats table - is brought to AfD, and there are sources found which provide enough coverage from which one could write substantial prose [I don't know, the season was a stand-out performance or otherwise stands out from the rest of the WP:ROTM bunch), then it should be kept. Conversely, if the same article is brought to AfD, and in this counter-example the sources are only local news or routine match play-by-play reports (even if such reports exist for the whole season), then it should be deleted or redirected. RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 01:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I do have other concerns about some sports articles, but my mission in this thread (with my NPP hat on) is narrower.....to get this apparent self-conflict in the SNG tweaked so that the apparent self-conflict is fixed so that we will know how to to implement the SNG. And, the result should answer this question: Whether or not the SNG gives a temporary bypass to GNG for a stats-only season article on a top level professional team in a medium sized country. North8000 ( talk) 23:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
If there is not consensus to dump NSEASONS altogether, then we really ought to resolve the issues raised above by (a) specifying which leagues warrant stand-alone season articles, and (b) getting rid of the "majority prose" clause. Here is a first shot at doing that:
Stand-alone articles should only be created on individual seasons of sports teams where significant coverage exists in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Significant coverage is likely to exist for individual seasons of teams in the following leagues:
Association football: Premier League, La Liga, Bundesliga, Ligue 1, Serie A, Eredivisie, Argentine Primera División, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, Major League Soccer, Primeira Liga, Liga MX, Russian Premier League, Austrian Football Bundesliga, Belgian First Division A, Swiss Super League, Ukrainian Premier League, Super League Greece, Süper Lig, Danish Superliga, Belgian First Division A, Scottish Premiership, Israeli Premier League, Croatian First Football League, Czech First League, FA Women's Super League, National Women's Soccer League, Frauen-Bundesliga, and Primera División (women)
Gridiron football: National Football League, Canadian Football League, American Football League, All-America Football Conference, and NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision
Basketball: National Basketball Association, American Basketball Association, Women's National Basketball Association, EuroLeague, Liga ACB, National Basketball League (Australia), Lega Basket Serie A, Greek Basket League, and Israeli Basketball Premier League
Ice hockey: National Hockey League, Kontinental Hockey League, Swedish Hockey League, Liiga, and Czech Extraliga
Baseball: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, KBO League, and Negro Major Leagues
Cricket: Indian Premier League, Big Bash League, Pakistan Super League, T20 Blast, Caribbean Premier League, Mzansi Super League, Bangladesh Premier League, and Lanka Premier League
Rugby Union: Premiership Rugby, Top 14, Japan Rugby League One, and Super Rugby
Teams in other sports and other leagues (including collegiate teams) may also qualify for stand-alone season articles depending on the depth and extent of significant coverage received.
Team season articles should include substantial and well-sourced prose. They should not be bare lists of players or statistics. Wikipedia is not a stats directory. It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.
Cbl62 ( talk) 12:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Notability is independent of WP:GACR compliance.— Bagumba ( talk) 01:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page...Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases.
Once again the list of association football leagues is too narrow. Giant Snowman 18:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.Separate articles for each league or team season might not the best way to cover the corresponding history. isaacl ( talk) 00:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I met someone at a party this weekend who seemed somewhat dismayed not to have a WP article once I started talking about my WP experience. I asked her was she an All-American (she said honorable mention), I asked was she an Olympian (no), I asked did she make the finals in her event at the US Olympic trial (no). She said her records stood for a long time and such. After some digging I determined that she was the winningest female swimmer in Big East Conference (1979–2013) history (as of 2005) with 5 individual championships and 14 relay championships, plus she was a member of 4 team championships. It does not seem that she was ever Big East female swimmer of the year. In her best year she was the 100 meter backstroke and 200 meter backstroke champion and was on four Big East Champion relay teams. When she was hitting 1:58 in the 200 Natalie Coughlin was doing 1:51s and she does not seem to have made the finals in any NCAA or U.S. Olympic trials event. Is she notable?- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Would she be about the minimum accomplishment to be deemed notable based solely on swimming accomplishment regardless of the press.Where are you getting the idea that this is a notability criterion?? There is NO automatic notability from any athletic achievement "regardless of the press"; per NSPORT a subject must meet GNG and this must be demonstrated in the article with at least one independent secondary RS containing SIGCOV. JoelleJay ( talk) 18:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I've been trying to get feedback related to this topic in a couple of places ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Medals_sections_of_infoboxes, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Swimming#Medals_in_the_infobox) to no avail. Since the topic of this post was notability and one of the quickest ways for a reader to determine notability of a subject is to scan the infobox, maybe I can get some feedback here. The issue is medals in the infobox. I am trying to understand what is Kosher. I have seen and used age-limited events such as Youth Olympic Games, Universiade, FIBA Under-17 Basketball World Cup and regional championships such as FIBA Under-16 Americas Championship, NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships. After seeing Olivia Smoliga's infobox with NCAA championships, I added that content to Emma Reaney's and Randall Cunningham II's infoboxes. I am wondering about the pre-collegiate National YMCA (LC & SC) aquatics events ( see here). These are for YMCA competitors who are between the age of 12 and 21 who have not represented any post high school institutions. Hecking has 3 career 1sts (LC), 4 2nds (SC) and 2 3rds (SC). Is it Kosher to include this in a medals element of an infobox.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)}}