Jump to content

Talk:January 2006 in sports

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

Pro Wrestling: Sport...or entertainment?

[edit]

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

Suggestion: Put current events on top

[edit]

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)[reply]

Go ahead really - well said Sam Vimes 18:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about college football?

[edit]

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)[reply]

The main issue is that there are far more college football games than NFL games, so there would have to be some consensus as to what games to show. If someone is willing to do it, though, I would have no objections. megarockman 18:03, 9 October 2005 (CDT)

Football (soccer)

[edit]

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)[reply]

Disagreee. It is known as football in most of the world. It is the "international football" Jooler 08:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know -- association football is the world's most popular sport, the Beautiful Game, the sport God himself would play, etc. But this page mentions several different types of football and is read by many people in the minority portion of the world where football does not mean soccer. Therefore, it's best to abide by the compromise previously worked out for pages that mention different kinds of football and use football (soccer) for the kicking game. -- Mwalcoff 22:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the page say College Football, then? Surely, by the same logic, it should be College American Football? And don't say that the "College" explains it, because by that logic the World Cup makes it perfectly clear that it's soccer we're talking about (since there's no World Cup in the other footballs?) Sam Vimes 22:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
College football refers to a specfic code, just like association football, Australian football, etc. If I were to write, "Football: Rose Bowl," that would be analagous to writing, "Football: World Cup." -- Mwalcoff 00:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but football (soccer) just looks stupid. The IOC call it football. FIFA call it football. The WORLD knows it as football. It is football. Let's call it football. American football requires the qualification. The game most of the world knows as football doesn't, and we are talking about the World Cup, international footbal, and there is no international football World Cup for American Football, Gaelic Football or Aussie Rules. The Rugby football Worlc Cup is called the Rugby world Cup. Our article on the world Cup is called Football World Cup So we know what game we are talking about. Jooler 02:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The argument over what to call the sport in question in circumstances like these was settled a while ago on Talk:Football (soccer), with the result being the somewhat awkward compromise you can see in that page's name. I would have prefered the less-awkward but similarly unambiguous "soccer," but I wasn't part of that debate. I'll repeat what I said above: If you say that it's OK to write "Football" because it's followed by "World Cup," I should be able to write "Football: Rose Bowl," since there is no soccer, Australian football or Gaelic football Rose Bowl. -- Mwalcoff 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Soccer is just wrong. In Britain it's considered slang. Like rugger for Rugby. It would be like calling American Football gridiron. Go ahead I've no objection to Football: Rosebowl. Jooler 05:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which do you think looks better:

OR

I'd say the second option makes a lot more sense. -- Mwalcoff 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Put football if you want for Amercican football I dont care. But soccer is just not on. The sport is not called soccer by the World governing body or by the IOC or by most other countries in the world. I see no reason why it should be downgraded to parenthetical addition of a slang word. It's like "football (rugger)" for rugby, it's just wrong wrong wrong. Jooler 05:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have to continually read artciles talking about things that make no sense to me like sidewalk - get used to using the word that the rest of the world uses. Jooler 05:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your viewpoint is obviously colored by your antipathy toward forms of English other than the one you are used to. I am not going to get into Wikipedia's millionth American English vs. British English argument. If you choose not to abide by the "football (soccer)" compromise, I'll drop a line on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and we'll see what other people think. -- Mwalcoff 05:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Your viewpoint is obviously colored by your antipathy toward forms of English other than the one you are used to." - Pot/kettle anyone? I'm fully used to American English. I have to be. I write computer programs on a Windows PC where I have to write color and favorites etc. When I install Word on my PC it defaults to American spellings. I have to make an effort to install the British English dictionary. Jooler 11:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We could also use the formal "Association football," if you don't want to use "football (soccer)". Also, please don't retroactively change your comments after I've replied to them. It can make the reply look stupid. -- Mwalcoff 05:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Football is sufficient, and understood by the rest of the world. Furthermore, it is played with the foot. US-type of "football" should be qualified with "American Football" for world audience if there is potential of confusion, it is afterall a misnomer. Btw, I like the score: Rose Bowl -- USC 22, Texas 10.
Saw the alert. This is supposed to be an international encyclopedia. In the context of this article, It seems using the awkward term football (soccer) just for the benefit of the editors/readers of the only country where it is called soccer would show a bit of Usonian bias in Wikipedia. I'd say leave soccer for the MLS and use football for the rest of the world, where it is called football, never soccer. Andres C. 15:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, we're getting off-topic now, but you really can't compare North American and European sports. The United States is a continent to itself. There is no equivalent to a continent-wide "Champions League" in North America, because North America is a continent. The NFL and NCAA Top 25 are the North American equivalents of the UEFA Champions League. If we were to put in regular-season Arena League, NCAA Division II and high-school games, I'd accept your complaint. -- Mwalcoff 21:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'd probably dispute that the NFL is equivalent to the Champions League - as far as I know (and I'll admit my knowledge of American sports is pretty rudimentary) NFL teams don't play in any lower competition in order to qualify for NFL matches, do they? Accepting for the purposes of discussion that the NFL and NCAA Top 25 form the top level at which American Football is played in the US (and all the leagues I named above are the top level of football in their respective countries - we're not mentioning the Championship, Scottish League 1-4, Serie B, 2. Bundesliga, etc.!), then the regular NFL season is equivalent to, for instance, the regular English Premier League season (although much shorter), while the Superbowl would be noteworthy in the same way that the FA Cup Final is. I'm just trying to say that I think that putting 13 NFL matches in this Sunday's entry, all with commentary of how the match turned out, is rather excessive – if we all did the same with our top domestic leagues every week the article would quickly become totally unmanageable. -- Arwel (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think it should be split off into NHL season 2005-06 or something, because it's clearly interesting info - it's just too granular for an overview page on the month Sam Vimes 16:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that the NFL is equivalent to the Champions League in terms of popularity and importance on its continent. It's obviously impossible to make an apples-to-apples comparison, since European and American sports are structured entirely differently.
I think what it comes down to is the number of games played. An NFL season has only 256 games among the teams, plus playoffs. It's reasonable to print the scores and a very brief summary, IMO. Major League Baseball plays 2,430 games per season, so printing every score would be obsessive. Only games of major importance and postseason games should be listed. In the NCAA, you've got 117 Division I-A teams, plus hundreds of teams in other divisions. So you can't print everything, but you can record the scores of the AP Top 25.
With European soccer, you've got hundreds of pro teams, so printing every score obviously won't work. But you can print every Champions League score, because there's not so many games. -- Mwalcoff 22:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but it still baffles me why, when one goes to 2005 NFL season the article is short and there's no way of finding the results from that page, just the tables. The NCAA pages are even worse. Then on October 2005 in sports, which is supposed to be an overview page of all sports events in October, you find detailed results of all NFL games played in October. Surely it should be the other way around? Something like:
NFL: Round Nine. For details, see 2005 NFL season (October)#Round Nine?
I wouldn't even object to a listing of the results, but match recaps is just a bit too granular for this page. Perhaps this is the way to go for Champions League results, too, now that there's pages like UEFA Champions League 2005-06. The play-offs and the Superbowl would remain, of course. Sam Vimes 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I do think that some of the (American) football game descriptions have gone a bit overboard. I tend to think, though, that scores by themselves can be misleading. For example, the Giants dominated most of the game against the Vikings on Sunday but lost due to a few fluke plays.
Personally, I'd rather have the scores and brief descriptions here, because this page is meant for items of less-permanent interest. I don't think too many people in 20 years are going to care too much about a Week 9 game between New York and Minnesota. For that reason, I'm not too fond of the idea of putting a lot of "current sports events" detail in regular articles. -- Mwalcoff 23:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that this does become a regular article at the end of each month, though. Look at October 2005 in sports and you'll see what I mean. Sam Vimes 07:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I think that's understood to be a news archive. -- Mwalcoff 00:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with Jooler. violet/riga (t) 21:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To be honest, there's very little mention of MLS on here - for November there's only 3 entries, the MLS Cup final and the two conference finals which led to it, so that's rather like a combination of the FA Cup Final and playoffs for the premiership title; I'd have no problem with them being listed. As to England-Argentina, it was a damned good match, but it was technicaly a friendly of no competitive significance (yes, I'll grant you that where those two teams are concerned "friendly" is a misnomer!), and I couldn't justify including it without also including Poland-Ecuador, Portugal-Croatia, Netherlands-Italy, or Macedonia-Paraguay, which also took place this weekend. -- Arwel (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

How does "stating the bleedin' obvious" settle the argument. Jooler 20:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jools, "American football" is a lot bloody different than "football". NoseNuggets 11:39 PM US EST Nov 19 2005
Right, so you're 'stating the bleedin' obvious again. 01:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

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)[reply]

I would have thought that a global encyclopedia would not try to exclude users from countries where Association Football was not the dominant sport. What's football to the US is gridiron to (some, at least) other parts of the world, football to an Australian is Aussie Rules to the rest of the world, and football to europe is soccer to many other parts of the world. I do support a distinction being made between the various codes. I agree that football(soccer) is a tad ugly, but I think it is preferable. Colonel Tom 02:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Day-of-week

[edit]

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)[reply]

Starting with the January 2006 in sports page, I have used the new three equal sign format for the monthly sports pages for continuity with the other pages. NoseNuggets 9:48 PM US EST Dec 30 2005.

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.

Numbers and Baton Rouge

[edit]

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)[reply]

Well-known exceptional circumstances? Average Earthman 10:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This was because of Hurricane Katrina that the Saints played in both Baton Rouge and San Antonio due to the unavailability of their regular home, the Louisiana Superdome. However, they will play games in both Baton Rouge and New Orleans in 2006. I personally feel this will continue next season until they return to the Superdome. NoseNuggets 9:39 PM US EST Dec 30 2005

Current/upcoming events section

[edit]

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)[reply]

Team handball is hugely popular in Denmark and Norway - probably enjoying second team-sport status behind football (the real one :p and is notoriously underprioritised on wikipedia and in English-speaking news sources because no English-speaking country plays it (excluding Australia, who got smacked 9–57 by Hungary yesterday). I can't speak for other countries, but I know it's played professionally (among women - the men's game is more professional) in Russia, Slovenia, Sweden (who did not get to the World Cup), and possibly Hungary and Germany too.
As for every World Cup winter-sports event, you may have a point. I think the only really notable ones during December is the 4 Hills tournament, since that has some special status within the World Cup circuit, but at the same time I think it's useful for those who follow winter sports World Cups to have somewhere to see the fixtures (then again...they're probably copyrighted...). Sam Vimes 08:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Team handball is, in fact, very popular in most of the countries taking part in the World Championship (no surprise there), with countries from many European nations as well as top notch contender South Korea. Also, it's only listed once a year, so shouldn't be a big deal in 'taking up space' terms.
Winter sports are hugely popular in most of Europe and the former Soviet Union area. China is a serious speed skating nation and is up-and-coming in biathlon as well (the latter is actually one of the most popular sports across much of Europe, Russia, and all of Scandinavia). Japan has a great tradition in ski jumping and speed skating. So I think you'll find that winter sports has hundreds of millions of followers in many parts of the world (but, unfortunately, not very many in the US and UK, which dominates the media world). So much for the sports' popularity.
As regards the listing of World Cup events, I had sort of expected a discussion---no problem with that. Actually, I have tried to limit the time window for WC listings to a month; perhaps after new year's we should reduce this to 2 1/2 -- 3 weeks in order to avoid info overload. By no means have I tried to 'bomb' WP with lots of WC meet listings! :-) Tell me what you think. --Wernher 20:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SportsCenter-ish summaries

[edit]

I'm starting to get a bit weary of cutesy summaries for events, such as this summary of the Seahawks-Eagles game:

Seattle Seahawks 42, Philadelphia Eagles 0: The Eagles retired Reggie White's number 92 at halftime, the home team was pretty much retired before that. The Seahawks used three turnover returns for touchdowns — two of them by Andre Dyson — and two Shaun Alexander touchdowns to thrash the "Beagles".

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)[reply]

I wasn't doing a SportsCenter-type of recap as you might have been thinking what I was doing, I was merely stating the facts. The Eagles were using the game to have a ceremony to retire Reggie White's number as he had passed away earlier that calendar year, but the Seahawks had made it a 35-0 game by intermission, and as the home team, it was reported by the media that they didn't give a complete effort and were embarrassed. In the Wikipedia welcome pages, we are encouraged to "write creatively and be colorful" in doing these. As for the "Beagles" reference, that's what one of the Philadelphia media types, Howard Eskin, whom I believe to be the southbound end of a northbound horse, called them after that performance (if you wanted to call it that) that night on a post-game call-in radio show he hosts. They hadn't been called that in three decades, and fit the situation perfectly. NoseNuggets 1:46 AM US EST Jan 5 2006.
I did a search in the Wikipedia namespace for "write creatively" and didn't find anything. Certainly, the kind of style exemplified above doesn't jive with the drier tone used throughout most of the project. -- Mwalcoff 00:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine NoseNuggets is thinking of WP:BB, but one readily recognizes that "bold" (as used here) and "creative" are surely different. Notwithstanding that "Current sports events" and Wikinews in general are likely to have a more breathless tone than the articles in Wikipedia proper, one observes that the admonishments "but don't be reckless" and "improve...a merely humorous article" seem to militate against one's understanding "bold" to mean "creative", and, indeed, seem to suggest that one ought to err on the serious, rather than jocular, side in making edits. Joe 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please no basketball

[edit]

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)[reply]

What makes a game qualify? Two top 5 teams playing? Two top 10 teams playing? Two top 25 teams playing? TrafficBenBoy 06:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Usually, as a rule of thumb that I use, it can be posted when there is a rivalry game (such as Duke-North Carolina), a #1 vs, #2 (like the previously mentioned Duke-Texas game in December) or a major upset by an unranked team of a Top Ten squad (like Marquette's shocker of UConn or North Dakota State stunning Wisconsin), then we can mention that. NoseNuggets 1:31 AM US EST Jan 5 2006.

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)[reply]

How about a Basketball in 2006 page? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I heartily disagree that any NBA regular season game, unless Michael Jordon comes back for one night only and drops 150 on Detroit or something, would be more important than an NFL playoff game. But that's just semantics, since I agree the Sonics-Suns should be on the page. I just had to state my opinion. Lord Bob 10:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem having it there, but having all the details from 1995 and 1998 seems a bit excessive. I've removed them. Sam Vimes 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't jump the gun

[edit]

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)[reply]

The game was well over when the Redskins went to what I call the "Meadowlands" position (see the story in the Philadelphia Eagles page) and there was no need to actually update the score. NoseNuggets 1:34 AM US EST Jan 5 2006.
A game is not over until the final gun and therefore should not be listed as being over until then. -- Mwalcoff 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Miami dismisses Four Offensive Assistants

[edit]

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

How this page is supposed to work

[edit]

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)[reply]

Italics

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

True. Dunno what happened to that, we used to do it a year ago. Sam Vimes 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with NoseNuggets

[edit]

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?

  1. List him at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts
  2. List him at WP:RFC/USER or
  3. Go straight to WP:AIV and have him blocked?

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)[reply]

It's not a requirement, especially when there have been other warnings, including my link to WP:OWN. I suggest RFC. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

February's up

[edit]

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.

Question about the Olympics - do we state the results of every medal event, or just the most notable ones (however way we can determine that). Sam Vimes 21:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh; this seems to have done incorrectly, as the current page should be moved to January 2006 in sports, and then the new month created from the redirect page. Someone (I don't mean you) seems to have mucked something up, though, and the page can't be moved. MisfitToys 00:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Type away! -- Arwel (talk) 02:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:January_2006_in_sports&oldid=1181096631"