Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)

message: Diff. Do we really need to go over this every single time we identify a piece of overlooked legacy wording? The change (bolded) is in this passage:  The current language implies either that medaling in a competition with more than three participants is an indicator of presumed notability, or that medaling when there are ≤3 competitors affords the same presumptions as when there are 4+ (because the latter also is not an indicator of presumed notability). The original intent of this wording was to distinguish between these two groups re: notability guidance, so to retain that distinction the language should reflect our updated presumptions. 
This really should not be controversial. JoelleJay (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please post an additional diff showing why you think this was an oversight? Because presumed notability appears several times around that passage, but presumed coverage does not exist in the article and the exact phrase has only been used 49 times on Wikipedia according to a quick search. SportingFlyer T·C 20:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: ...did you miss that whole RfC and the followups? Here is when the guideline stabilized with all instances of "presumed notable" supposed to be replaced with "significant coverage is likely to exist". The term doesn't have to be "presumed coverage", the point is to remove the "presumed notable" language. JoelleJay (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been over ten months since that closed. I don't mind the edit, but the problem with that particular sentence is that changing it from presumed notable to presumed coverage makes the entire thing worse/less clear. At least the current edit makes clear someone who got an Olympics participation trophy isn't entitled to an article. I think options are removing entirely or changing it to something like ... SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your suggested wording is great. I'll implement it. JoelleJay (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have an objection to my implementing this? @Cbl62? I tried to do so earlier but was reverted again by @Cassiopeia despite this discussion having a pretty uniform consensus against retaining "presumed notable" and for "likely to have...". JoelleJay (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  T-N-T! T-N-T! T-N-T! ;) On a more serious note, I have no objection to the change. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

text: What specifically is the proposed change?   Which section/paragraph and which specific substitution?  Such is not stated anywhere in this thread.North8000 (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The section in question is the green text in my first post, the proposed change is the green text in SF's comment. It's an extremely minor change that simply makes the guidance consistent with everywhere else. JoelleJay (talk) 05:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just leave it as "you should be able to figure it out" instead of distilling it into a clear proposed change. So, with that narrowing, you are asking about 2 people for feedback. :-) North8000 (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  changed to  JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Fine with me, and I support that change. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fine with me, too. Cbl62 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Since I saw it's been reverted already, I also support this change. SportingFlyer T·C 09:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the change. It reads better. - Enos733 (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: Unlike the (unintentional) case with my initial BOLD edits, this current edit is not a substantive change to the guideline, and especially because we also have unanimous support for the proposed wording, it does not need formal closure.  JoelleJay (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The norm is to get an editor, dont need to be an admin, to close the discussion and state the result. If there is unanimous decision, then it is easy to close the discussion (usually after 7 days the discussion has raised). It is better to be slow and do the what it takes then just change in such manner especially about notablity which is one of the most important topic in Wikipedia and it is not hard to find an interested editor to do the closing (for I dont see "each" editor state "support" of the wording change for at least I am the one of the editors state a closing should be done" since I did not vote support so it is not an unanimous support for this topic. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia  talk 01:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the norm for substantive changes; clarifying the wording of a guideline in a way that 100% reflects pre-existing consensus (and now also represents unanimous consensus among editors who have actually opined on the proposed wording) falls under  Meanwhile, your continued reverts do fall afoul of policy  Frankly, you should not be policing this area if you do not have the language proficiency to understand the changes being made. JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:   A gentle and friendly minnow slap -- keep it on substance rather than the editor's personal attributes. Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently changing "presumed notability" to "presumed coverage" in our sport-specific guidance is still, somehow, controversial? 

message: I see them for boxing, kickboxing, and MMA, but not for wrestlers, judoka, and other grappling sports (besides sumo). Seems like a big oversight considering wrestling and judo are Olympic sports. Am I missing something or have these just not been structured yet? Spagooder (talk) 23:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guidelines for wrestlers/judoka/grapplers 

message: Regarding the Athletics/track & field and long-distance running section, the IAAF has renamed itself World Athletics. (The IAAF page has also been renamed.) Zatsugaku (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  IAAF is now World Athletics 

message: Recently, I've been looking through articles of winter sport atheletes and doing a quick copy-edit on them, especially bobsleigh and skeleton. However, I noticed every one-time Winter Olympics participant has been documented even if they're not notable. A lot of them are also poorly-sourced or poorly-written stubs. I was wondering if there was clearer and easier criteria for these types of atheletes; otherwise, we may assume their articles pass WP:SPORTBASIC? Specifically, even for two or four-person bobsleigh, do they need to be in top ten of every bobsleigh tournament according to IBSF to be considered notable? CuteDolphin712 (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bobsleigh and skeleton 

message: I propose the following for inclusion to the main article.
I will ask other Bridge editors to comment and add.
===Bridge===
(Note: I am not sure how to create Shortcuts, nor how to check with conflicts with other shortcuts on other topics. The shortcut WP:BRIDGE refers to physical bridges)
;Significant coverage is likely to exist for Bridge players if they:
# Have won a medal at an international event at the senior, open, womens, mixed, youth or junior level. International events include the European Championship, World Championships and North American Bridge Championships (NABCs).
# Have placed first or second in a major North American Bridge Championships. Major events are Vanderbilt, Spingold, Soloway or Reisinger.
# Have won an open, mixed, senior or women's North American Bridge Championships.
# Have been elected to the Hall of Fame in their National Bridge Organization (NBO)
Discussion information:
European and World events award medals. NABCs do not.
Other National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) may have appropriate qualifications. For example someone in the Hall of Fame for a NBO.
*Oppose The proposal shows no evidence that individuals with these honors have recieved significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bridge 

message: (Note: I am not sure how to create Shortcuts, nor how to check with conflicts with other shortcuts on other topics. The shortcut WP:BRIDGE refers to physical bridges)
;Significant coverage is likely to exist for Bridge players if they:
# Have won a medal at an international event at the senior, open, womens, mixed, youth or junior level. International events include the European Championship, World Championships and North American Bridge Championships (NABCs).
# Have placed first or second in a major North American Bridge Championships. Major events are Vanderbilt, Spingold, Soloway or Reisinger.
# Have won an open, mixed, senior or women's North American Bridge Championships.
# Have been elected to the Hall of Fame in their National Bridge Organization (NBO)
Discussion information:
European and World events award medals. NABCs do not.
Other National Bridge Organizations (NBOs) may have appropriate qualifications. For example someone in the Hall of Fame for a NBO.
*Oppose The proposal shows no evidence that individuals with these honors have recieved significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 10:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Bridge