This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
sport-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports articles
Assess : newly added and existing articles, maybe nominate some good B-class articles for
GA; independently assess some as A-class, regardless of GA status.
Cleanup : *
Sport governing body (this should-be-major article is in a shameful state) *
Field hockey (History section needs sources and accurate information - very vague at the moment.) * Standardize
Category:American college sports infobox templates to use same font size and spacing. *
Sport in the United Kingdom - the
Popularity section is incorrect and unsourced. Reliable data is required.
* Fix project template and/or "to do list" Current version causes tables of content to be hidden unless/until reader chooses "show."
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This page was created last week and then arbitrarily moved to draft. There appears to be no logical or consistent way of moving it back out of draft than satisfying the arbitrary whim of an administrator who plainly has no understanding whatsoever, and who has claimed certain sources are not sources. I claim that this obstruction needs to be bypassed post haste.
Marplesmustgo (
talk)
23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)reply
CASSIOPEIA I get your point.
1984–85 Four-Nations Cup has enough reliable sources from my point of view. I looked at the links, and they provide sufficient verification for the content in the article. We're just not going to have that much online content about matches from the 1980s. For recent matches, yes, more sources might be needed, but I think this is enough for now. — Stevey7788 (
talk)
17:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Stevey7788, I understand online sources might be limited for 80's and the it has been histmerged but
Marplesmustgo at least get the book source right instead of link back to article; routine report of matches could not attribute the to notability of the article. Thank you.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
CASSIOPEIA All right, I'll leave this to the two of you and the rest of the other guys from WikiProject Cricket. Still, my point is that the article's flaws are not serious enough to actually warrant speedy deletion. Insufficient citations in a fairly good article should and can be fixed through constructive dialogue rather than CSD tags. Instead, try tagging for insufficient references / footnotes. — Stevey7788 (
talk)
18:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Stevey7788 good day. It is no longer CSDed.
Marplesmustgo pls note sources would be used to support content claimed but they might not able to contribute to notability of the subject - such as routine sport report of matches results from database sites such as soccerway, Sherdog, and etc because information could be provided by effected players/promoter/sport organizers which make the source not independent. Thank you.
CASSIOPEIA(
talk)18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
I do not quite understand some of the "telegraphese" used by
CASSIOPEIA here, but in creating this article I made reference to four sources: a book by
Bill Frindall, the 1987
Wisden,
ESPNCricinfo and
Cricket Archive. Cassiopeia's response indicated he/she did not know what these sources were and indeed did not understand these sources had been linked to. Indeed I question why
CASSIOPEIA, who plainly has no understanding of cricket, should be allowed to unilaterally veto an article about a cricket tournament on Wikipedia.
Marplesmustgo (
talk)
23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, mate, I did read your message, and you are wrong. The fact you can't use archive.org to rustle up Cricket Archive doesn't make Cricket Archive an illegitimate source. All four sources were relevant and accessible and you, quite rightly, have been overruled in trying to delegitimise them.
Marplesmustgo (
talk)
23:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply
If you didn't think the sources were illegitimate, you would not have sought to veto the article on the basis the sources were incomplete. Wisden, Cricinfo, Cricket Archive and a Bill Frindall book are all complete and readily available sources, and more than cover this four-match tournament.
Marplesmustgo (
talk)
23:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)reply