Knowledge (XXG) talk:Centralized discussion/Sports results

1901:

the cricket matches in England for 2006, while the season is going on, it would be far more appropriate to make an article called "Cricket Matches in England (2006 season)" or something of the like. Then use the on-going event template to title the top of the page. When the page overflows, as there seems to be many matches, branch the article according to either by team, or date, or whatever organization has been planned. The current approach seems to be that you write a sport result for a particular event then incorporate them into a higher level article. The planning and writing of an article should be rather reversed. It should start from a single article, then branch out to many articles, highlighting the important key matches, and separating out the minor matches. This is consistant for what we do for fictional minor characters. We don't have a page for every fictional minor character in Star Wars, but we have a collective page of fictional minor characters in Star Wars.

607:

someone has to look after all these articles, and my guess is that the creators of most of these articles will be long-gone next year, leaving someone else to maintain them. And while Knowledge (XXG) may not be paper, it definitely is server space, screen real estate, and search engine fodder. All of these things can get chewed up by the enormous amount of grossly unencyclopedic stuff that has been being pushed past editors in the past year. It wasn't long ago that there would have been no argument whatsoever about the fate of a single-game article. (That was the time when we were still arguing over Pokemon articles. Lost that battle...) Personally, I would prefer if we could mount at least a semblance of sanity here and remember not only what Knowledge (XXG)'s goals are, but what they

519:, encyclopedias are not almanacs. It is not encyclopedic to record every single event of a sports season. The proponents of inclusion argue that the individual match articles are valuable because they are part of a process yielding a single article for the season. Besides cluttering the article space in the meantime, I would respond that that argument is irrelevant, because the resulting merged material itself -- informal, journalistic accounts of every single match -- is not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). I am not a hater of sports, I am a sports fan myself of U.S. baseball and football and ice hockey. (I even know the basics of, and enjoy watching, cricket.) But I don't think Knowledge (XXG) should attempt to be an almanac for those sports, and the fans who keep up things like the 1606:

suggestion, which hasn't been mentioned by anyone so far, is that this would be a very suitable topic for a WikiBooks project. So maybe for next season, a group of interested people could get together and make the Wiki English Cricket Almanac 2006 (or whatever). Then people deeply interested in cricket can get all the detailed reports from the almanac, and people writing encyclopedic summaries of the season or of specific teams can take source material from the finished almanac to use directly in Knowledge (XXG). All these articles could include a template box up near the top that says something like "For more detailed information on the 2006 English cricket season, see WikiBooks:ECA2006". My personal thoughts:

1911:, then it should be moved to a subpage of a project or user page. They may, however contribute to a larger encompassing event, like the entire season of Cricket for the 2006 season. Then any match that is deemed minor is placed in a collective minor result page of Cricket for the 2006 season. Any match that is deemed critical may deserve its own article once the season article expands significantly further. Split the season match page to separate large encompassing sport results using some kind of organization like matches with this home team of the 2006 season, or by date, when the season match page is too large. -- 1360:. They also violate "not a free host", costing the project a bunch of not-paper. The intended future merge doesn't justify spending current time in article-space. It sounds more like an argument to move to user pages. Really, this should be going on in somebody's own computer and posted to a Geocities type of page. All that ought to be on WP servers is encyclopedic articles, drafts of encyclopedic articles if multiple editors are working on them, and Wikinews feeds on a league's championship (whether a big game or tournament finals or season standings). 1494:

contain sports information. Why stop them doing that? If that's what they want to do, why stop them? It doesn't do any harm to Knowledge (XXG)'s image or the content of the rest of the encyclopedia. By the way, we are discussing English championship cricket. League cricket is something different entirely. Remember this is a wiki. More than that, it's a website, so anyone can take what they want and leave the rest. Why not allow people to write about what they want to write about? Yours is a sure way to remove contributors.

1425:

that they are only harming the feelings of those with chips on their shoulders about sports results not being intellectual enough. Another fact is that these articles (if we are to define them as such) are far more notable than Pokemon. The basic argument about keeping Pokemon is "there's verifiable information, it doesn't really do us any harm, why not let the author write about what they want to write about?" I think the exact same argument applies here. My most important point, that the articles are soon to be merged, has

672:: I'm all for collecting these articles into season summaries, but having a separate article for every match is just clutter. It also sets a dangerous precident for any other kind of sporting match. I don't think the 'It's only temporary' argument holds much water either, since at best an admin would have to then go and delete all the articles once the season is over, and at worst the people maintining the articles will leave and leave the clutter behind. - 854:

final would be the only two matches to be applicable for such treatment, but most followers of county cricket would say that those matches hold no more importance to them than a County Championship match. This would then have to be determined for each individual case on each season's talk pages - resulting in a lot of disjoint debates. And, because it is only parts of the content that is up for deletion, this can not be taken to AfD (using the example of

1988: 1161:. That is to say, before long, they will be part of a set of grander articles. This is a temporary stage. They aren't great articles in their own right, but they soon will be. Why come and attempt to disrupt a process of article creation? It would be possible to create them in user space or in the Knowledge (XXG): namespace. But this would be highly undesirable as it would mean we have no such summary articles in the meantime. 1382:"All that ought to be on WP servers is encyclopedic articles". Well, that's just what we're debating, isn't it? Whether the actual content is encyclopedic or not. Basically, I would argue that since it is possible to write verifiable, NPOV content about individual sports games - even regular season games - the content should be kept. To take an example again - would anyone complain greatly if I mentioned in a coming article on 1692:. They're aiming to create textbooks, not almanacs. So basically, if it's aimed to have an encyclopedic summary of the season, then it's not going to be on Wikibooks. However, I'm still to hear any good arguments against merging the pages into a full season review for each club and each competition, which I fully support and will probably need help to do from some friendly administrator when the pages are fully cleaned up. 440:; only serious fans of those particular sports and teams care about it: "Fancruft is a term referring to detailed information that people (often characterised as fans of the subject in question) add to Knowledge (XXG). People who oppose the inclusion of this information often claim that it is of minimal interest to non-fans." We could probably add the end results of our discussion here to the fancruft article as well. -- 1247:

cry). As for not addressing any of your other points, that's true, but it was outside the intended scope of my own response. My intent was not to tackle the cricket articles on their own merit, but merely to question your interpretation of the rules. I'm busy doing a lot of stuff right now and currently lack the time to counter all your points, so I just picked one that stood out.

1993: 129:

pot. So if it is possible to leave the cricket articles for two weeks (possibly retracting the delete votes on the grounds that "these articles will be merged later on, and this does not form a consensus for future sports articles"?), then they will be merged and the individual articles deleted from sight, and new such articles will be created in user space. OK?

2030:. Regardless of that slow boat, I feel WP needs a good yardstick to measure all these sports results pages against. Many, many editors are expending many, many hours of honest effort, thinking they're contributing to a better, brighter WP, but other editors are in opposition -- resulting in wasted effort, hurt feelings, and considerable strife. IMHO, naturally. 948:

be in the main namespace even for a few months, and I don't like to see articles in the main namespace that are planned to be deleted. It was better when they were subpages of "2005 English cricket season", but someone objected to that for some rather weak reason to do with transclusion of subpages being allegedly forbidden.

595:

period. WP not being paper means, as I see it, that one article per season, one per team, one for each main tactical and strategical detail of the sport have their place here, one for some main players... But definately not every match. WP is not paper but it ain't infinite either, neither physically nor in human resources.

1933:

I am not sure what you mean by sub-pages. If you mean pages preceeded by / (Eg: wiki/Team_Season/game) please note that sub-pages are not encouraged in the article space. Articles in the aritcle space need to stand on their own as articles. If people are just working on a draft, they should do so

1900:

The main article space should not be a container for sport results that plan to be merged into a future article. Rather, subpages are far more appropriate for this situation or organize several main articles and describe them as an on-going event. For example, if someone wanted the sport results of

1632:

This same approach could be used by fans of any other sport that wish to include detailed summaries of every game. So there should be no worries about setting a bad precedent here. (I personally am concerned that someone will take the 2005 English cricket season articles exactly as an excuse to start

968:

Merge the lot in whatever page the creators intend to make them end up in when the article's claimed temporary status passes. It only causes a lot of unneccesary moves and merges. Just think big and start writing an article that lists all connected matches. If you write seperate entries there's bound

947:

However, I do not think that the process should be repeated in the same form next year. I think putting the articles in the main namespace was a big mistake. How was the person who just finds this one article supposed to know the whole plan? I also think that insufficiently notable articles shouldn't

2015:, there is still confusion about pages with sports match results. Many are being AfD'ed, some with result DELETE, some with result KEEP or MERGE ... WP needs (this is my perspective) a central policy/guideline to differentiate between encyclopedic articles about sports seasons, without violating the 1957:

My worry about sports score articles is that they would be temptations to break Wiki's rules about Plagarism and first-hand research. I think this is true of anything where the Wiki article is going to read almost exactly like a newspaper article. If there is a sure-fire way to solve these two big

1460:

Even when the articles are merged, the actual content is unencyclopedic and not appropriate content for Knowledge (XXG). The discussion was framed as "Sports results", not "Individual articles about sports results", and while it focuses on the the individual cricket match articles as an example, the

1386:

details of his standout performances in English cricket this season? Doubt it. So why is this content a problem when the details are written under the title of a particular competition or a particular team? (Note: I've pretty much gone away from arguing that matches deserve a single article - I just

1246:

So there was a discussion. Splendid, discussion is good, but that does not mean that WP:NOT ceases to matter or loses importance just because some people don't like it. When the community's consensus is that WP:NOT hurts Knowledge (XXG) and it becomes one of the inactive rules, let me know (so I can

1005:

To Mgm and Raven: The point is that each match appears on several different pages — at a minimum, one for each team, and one for the specific competition that they're playing in (there are several different competitions being played concurrently). By editing the match, you automatically edit all the

955:

I'd also like to note in passing that the premise of the question contains a geographically-biased assumption. The talk of "championship events" really doesn't exist in the same way outside North America. The winner of the season is the team which finishes with the highest league position — there is

873:

I think everybody who wants deletion has their own goals on this, honestly. Personally, I'm in favour of the second option you list (merging them into seasonal reviews). But I'm sure there are people out there who prefer the first. That's part of the problem with dividing an argument ilke this up on

627:

I learned about the Cricket pages and this controversy when I clicked on "random article" this morning. I came here because I immediately knew the article did not belong on Knowledge (XXG) - it's not encyclopedic. My vote is speedy deletion, but would understand if someone wants to create a page for

580:

So the raw data that goes into that is not an article in its own right. It might be appropriate to create the main season's page immediately to remind everyone that that's what we're working towards, but have subpages for the individual events (with the intention of subsequently removing those that

231:

There are, however, quite a significant number of notable TV shows. The amount of matches in the 2005 English cricket season, btw, is something in the region of 500 (there's 538 in the category, but that includes all the pages the content is transcluded into). And let me just give a hypothetical use

88:

Practically all the others -- like league cricket matches, football games, baseball games, etc. -- are properly the province of media which are designed for listing and collecting sports results. Knowledge (XXG) is not a daily newspaper or news/sports web site. It is not an almanac of cricket or any

1493:

articles are being worked upon. Why should we deny ourselves a article in the mean time? To your second point, are you really saying that something verifiable, true, and not original research should be deleted? This isn't ever supposed to be news content. Some people want to have Knowledge (XXG)

1134:

First question: what harm do these pages do? Is someone seriously going to come to Knowledge (XXG), see a sports result and think "Knowledge (XXG) must be rubbish"? I think not. If there is another reason why it would be harmful, I would be glad to hear it. If the only reason is "it hasn't been

1111:

All this being so, I think I'd agree with those who say that the individual articles are rather out of place in the main namespace, even as a temporary measure, but also agree with those who say that the information in them is not in itself unencylopedic, and that they are therefore appropriate for

1034:

Yeah. That happened originally (having them as subpages of Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Cricket). Then they got moved out of Knowledge (XXG) space because mirrors didn't pick up the transclusion (that was actually the argument against it back in May - it's down in the Village pump archives) I think,

943:

I agree that individual sports events shouldn't have articles. The people writing the cricket articles claim to be doing something different, however — the articles are supposed to be temporary, as a convenient way of writing season reviews for each team and each competition without duplicating the

1549:

Yes, but there's a difference between huge, unmaintanable lists that are quite obviously never going to be complete and of very little research value, compared to a seasonal review of a team's performance, which may be a source for external research for people writing biographies about cricketers,

1466:

For the record, I think the Pokemon-cruft and similar content is also not suitable for Knowledge (XXG), but if there is a distinction it might be that the fan base for Pokemon is tens or hundreds of millions of people in a large number of countries, while the fan base for English league cricket --

1424:

To your last point, well, um, yes. Did anyone disagree with that? May I ask who is really going to turn up at WP and think, "hmm, a cricket match. This encyclopaedia must be crap."? That's if they even find the things anyway. It's not as if there are links right, left and centre. The fact is

1400:

in the Monty Panesar article but would (and do) object to the same information as its own article because it's just that: a detail. It has encyclopedic merit solely as information describing some other subject, but can't stand on its own as a subject. Encyclopedic Details and Encyclopedic Topics

1085:

I'm in the "mixed feelings" camp here, which may disappoint some of my fellow WikiProject editors a little I suppose. I must admit that I don't particularly like the idea of temporary articles in the main namespace, but on the other hand that was only done because writing them in userspace stopped

853:

Arbitrary notability standards. Not all sports have championship matches, for a start, nor does it follow automatically that a championship final is more notable and worthy of inclusion than a regular season match - in the case of English county cricket, the C & G Trophy final and Twenty20 Cup

838:

obviously cries out for an article, even though it was largely reported on by the media and probably would not get an article in a print encyclopedia. Indeed, seasonal sports results are often published in both general-interest almanacs and sports-specific almanacs, and in supplementary volumes to

606:

Knowledge (XXG) is not, and never has been, intended to be a reencapsulation of the entire internet. Yet we keep getting these articles which really want to live on some sports site somewhere. I have no problems with articles on sports, or even articles which are season summaries for a league, but

591:

Individual sports matches are not encyclopedic with a very few exceptions. They are news material, not encyclopedia's. They are unmantainable: there are at least thousands of matches, and other such sports events, of top national/worldwide level competitions and of notable sports every week. Every

283:

Um, right. So the argument is: "The information exists elsewhere, hence we don't need it on WP." Enjoy listing every single one of the 720,000 articles on WP for deletion, based on that argument. Sports are important to people, just as music and TV are, hence it is notable (with the low notability

175:

I can agree to. Major events like these can have articles of their own, but any single match is to me an automatic delete vote. Any sports match worth having a separate article on is part of a bigger picture. Either it's a part of a tournament, in which case it should be merged with the tournament

1722:

I disagree that the current project has to be shunted off to Wikibooks in light of the fact that some people (not a consensus - SOME people) want it to be deleted. I think Vimes' compromise about making each individual result part of a larger page for each club, which will avoid "clutter" that so

1676:

This isn't bad. People who are interested in the results would obviously be linked to Wikibooks from the Knowledge (XXG) article on the season in question, so people would know where the information is. I kinda like this, although I'm not sure what the Wikibooks crowd would think. If this ends up

1410:

Right...I get that. And if you've seen my arguments all over this page, it's basically the same as what you're suggesting (even though I have been creating nearly 300 of these articles with details) - that they may well be merged into larger articles detailing the history of a team, and I have no

1154:. These pages are verifiable. Why then delete? Cricket scores are inherently easier to verify than, say, football (soccer) scores or baseball scores as the scorecard explains every bit of progress in the game. That it is not immediately comprehensible to a non-afficionado is hardly our fault. 774:

in Knowledge (XXG), and I didn't want to just assert it in a conclusionary manner. But really, what is notable about a regularly-scheduled sporting event? Yes, it is viewed (ephemerally) by a large number of people, but so are a number of scheduled, live entertainments. We do not have things like

338:

I agree with what Peter said above. While these contributions are good, they're not necessarily appropriate for an encyclopedia; teams and players are notable and encyclopedic; individual regular-season matches are not. If they are particularly extraordinary, it's certainly worth mentioning the

128:

OK, I can agree in principle (though it puzzles me why, when episodes of a TV show are notable) - but the problem is that if people decide to delete the content now, there's a heck of a lot of work that just goes AWOL, and the season reviews of the 2005 English cricket season will basically go to

76:

In summary, I do not believe that reports of routine, non-championship sporting events are suitable for Knowledge (XXG) articles. There are tens of thousands of organized sporting events played every year, all over the world, and only a very few of them are notable in an encyclopedic sense. These

1605:

After thinking about this for a while, and considering the opinions already presented, I don't have a strong opinion for inclusion or deletion of these specific articles, though if the pages are meant to be temporary, perhaps they should be marked as such with a template of some sort. My biggest

1044:

That's an interesting problem, I wasn't aware of that. I tried to track down the archived discussion but the Village Pump is an absolute hell-hole for that kind of thing. Hrm. I still think it would be the easiest way to go, but now I have something new to think about. That's the wonderful thing

594:

As to the cricket matches itself I've came across them some time ago. They are well written indeed and were hard work. Their authors should be given a fair amount of time to copy them somewhere else, wikicities maybe, before being deleted. A normal encyclopedia would have one article on cricket,

982:

I agree that the end of season review article is the proper place for these sorts of things. However I do have a few questions. If the articles are supposed to be temporary until the main end of season article is created, why can you not create the article at the beginning of the season and add

536:

Agreed, the merged article would not be encyclopedic, except by summarizing: removing a lot of information, and bringing in appropriate summaries from outside sources to indicate the notable opinions about the season as a whole. In other words, the article for the whole season would have to be

1663:

What does everyone think about this? To me, it seems a good compromise that addresses almost all of the concerns raised above, but obviously I may have missed something. If people from both "sides" think this is a good idea, it might be something worth strongly recommending for future seasons.

858:

most people would recognise the encyclopedic status of a seasonal review), but would instead be the subject of edit wars. Solution? Create a non-arbitrary notability standard - such as "a major professional sports event whose result was concurrently important to x number of people" which would

755:

For a start, the assertion that the matches are "non-notable" is a stretch - it's the premier competition of English cricket. A non-notable match would be a local league match between two city sides, say. These matches are well visited, some of them are even screened on TV, and unlike American

347:

calls it, a "smerge"). Championship games are televised worldwide to an audience undoubtedly in the tens of millions, and they tend to be remembered much more in the history of the sport. I don't think that it's necessary to debate whether or not the World Cup, Stanley Cup, World Series, NBA

205:

Personally, I'm not convinced individual television episodes are notable either, although I don't feel strongly about it (I'm still pondering that). That said, there is a difference in terms of sheer numbers: 162 × 30 = 4,860 regular season Major League Baseball games per season, for instance,

1846:

I'm going to agree with Jeff above that this issue needs more eyes and shouldn't yet be closed. I knew of the cricket controversy (having stumbled into it briefly a month or two ago) and am a fairly active editor, but didn't find this discussion until today. In addition, I've just added a new

1311:

I agree that given the lack of consensus we should keep these particular articles (although I think there is a consensus for not doing it in the same way again). But since you ask, I don't consider "what harm do they do?" to be a very good argument in general. On that basis, nothing would be

57:

I also think this is helpful - I would possibly agree with the main thing we are discussing, that individual games are below the notability limit, but I don't want to see that used as a means of deleting heaps of potentially useful and relevant content which could easily be merged into more

983:

matches to it as the season progresses? Then you wouldn't have to merge all these pages at the end of the season, or have to bother about having them put up for deletion. This sounds like the obvious solution to me, is there anything wrong with this suggestion that I haven't considered?

1836:

Perhaps if a larger group of the Wiki community were aware of this conversation we could find a less biased consenses. A vote of 9 to 6 (I vote remove) doesn't seem like it's had enough opinions to be valid. Will it be possible to draw more attention to the issue before you close it?

1658:

There is the problem of pulling in information to Knowledge (XXG) from the book in an inconsistent manner; i.e., copying WP article text from different versions of the book, the fact that later edits to match summaries in Knowledge (XXG) may not propagate back to the book, and vice

2061:

I was not involved in the original discussion pertaining to 2005 Criket matches. However, at the college football project we have discussed this and we are proceeding to create articles on individual seasons and even games so long as the are well written and comply with policy.

2001:

I disagree, I see no reason these articles are more of a temptation than any other type on Knowledge (XXG). As always, sources need to be cited and plagarism is not to be tolerated. There is no reason to harm our coverage of this field of endeavor based upon fears of possible

42:

articles. The main question is phrased in such a way that I think most people would agree to delete such articles. But the cricket authors are trying to do something rather different from what the main discussion implies, and I don't think people have realised that. As I argued

1651:

There are a lot more people who browse Knowledge (XXG) than WikiBooks, so maybe the cricket-almanac project will find fewer editors than they would otherwise. (This concern is hopefully alleviated by my suggestion to place a link to the project at the top of every 2006 cricket

537:

re-sourced and effectively rewritten, anyway, what function do the individual game articles serve in this process? Why not just subst all these little game pages into one big temporary page (like an author's user page) right now, and delete all the individual game articles? --

297:

No, my argument was "The information exists and is easy to get elsewhere, therefore 'I want the information over here!' is not a reason to have it on WP". You don't need to tell me sports are notable. I like sports. I write about sports, and have an article on CFL quarterback

348:

Finals, or championship matches in other sports should be included as articles (though note that championships that are multiple games between the two teams, such as the Stanley Cup and the World Series, are given one article per series rather than one article per game; see

1339:

as an encyclopedia, therefore they are encyclopedic, others will deride them as sportscruft. At the moment there is no consensus, and this argument of what harm do they do is less an argument and more a correct placing of the burden of proof upon those wishing to delete.

904:" for a perfect example. I'm sure there are many more. A total ban on including non-championship games would seem to be unreasonable; if the sport is notable, then so are its most notable games, which are not necessarily its championship games. Some championship games are 797:

These articles are useful as a record of results, incidents etc, which can be compiled into a larger "season review" or other "bigger picture" article. Notable enough to be included, and it's not like its BJAODN or spam or misinformation, as such is better in than out :D

401:

To me this feels like rewriting policy, not just reinterpreting it. It's the choice of "almanac" that worries me the most, because this is not much different from creating any type of internal database. It's very obviously intended solely cricket fans and not because it's

555:. Otherwise you are wrecking a decent, if slightly disentangled, encyclopedia article for no apparent reason. As mentioned below, the match summaries may potentially have uses in biographical or journalistic research, and it's a part of the team's history. And as for the 273:

for ice hockey information, and about a thousand baseball sites. I've written articles on athletes, and I didn't need Knowledge (XXG) to give me information on what they've done because the information is out there and extremely easy to get. In short: you're welcome.

993:

It is - but the problem is that then we can't correct typos, language, and so on efficiently - it has to be done on the individual pages, and that's four different edits. Not a big deal, but slightly annoying, but maybe probably preferable to these incessant rows.

114:

article. The same applies to cricket, ice and field hockey, football, every sport I can imagine. There are exceptions to every rule (I think All-Star Games are worthy of articles despite just being single games), but it's a fairly loose criteria that I can go on.

1559:(Just a side note) Your point about usefulness for research is good, but whether or not something is interesting to read depends on the reader. Almost every reader here finds articles on both topics that they find interesting and topics that they find dull. -- 1488:

How is it clutter? You have to go looking for these pages. They aren't linked from anywhere. Clutter is a page linked by hundreds of others, which is rubbish. "The content of articles being worked upon belongs in User space." Knowledge (XXG) is a wiki.

154:

get in as a Knowledge (XXG) article if it wasn't used online. And that's a sign that our editors need to get their heads out of their own community duckponds, not that we should start including Canadian hockey player jargon or adolescent slang for hugging in

89:

other sport. The reports of the type recently on AfD would be appropriate for a special-purpose web site, or a SportsWiki, or a CricketWiki, or something similar, but given the encyclopedic aim, and limited resources, on Knowledge (XXG) they're just clutter.

849:

in any significant way - while Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the history of a team sport is clearly a worthy encyclopedic topic, and the only debatable point is how deep to dive, so to speak. This leads in to my last

306:, even for top-flight competition, are notable enough to have their own articles. Season summaries are wonderful things. Heck, I wouldn't even object to an article containing all the results for that year. But an article on each game is just too much. 944:

reports of the same match in several different places. I think these reviews of the whole season are sufficiently notable to be articles, and the sub-articles should therefore be allowed to stay until the end of the season (which is very soon now).

921:

As you will see by looking at my comments above, neither I nor anyone else proposed a "total ban on non-championship games", but rather that "routine non-championship sports results" do not belong in Knowledge (XXG). Obviously things like

166:

of articles about proper subjects to worry about, and adding to that burden by making us the custodians of whatever sportscruft people happen to include is unacceptable. Massively popular and widely publicized sporting events like the the

1760:

Moving it to Wikibooks is as good as deleting it - Wikibooks isn't about that sort of thing. A list of sports results and boxscores isn't instructional material by any stretch - so save the transwiki effort and just delete it outright.

1268:

Yes, the least important one. I still maintain that verifibility is the most important part of the encyclopaedia. But no matter. Has anyone got any points against my statements other than Lord Bob's fundemental disagreement?

1086:

transclusion from working properly on the mirrors. I also accept that other sports don't have this level of detail written about them, but then how many other domestic sporting events last for more than 20 hours of playing time?

1112:

Knowledge (XXG). If the transclusion problem with user pages could be solved, then I'd say that would be the best way to go; the eventual larger articles would make Knowledge (XXG) more useful, and for me that's the clincher.

951:

I have another problem with the cricket articles, in that they have too much hyperbole. They read like journalism, not an encyclopaedia. But if I'm not prepared to edit them myself, maybe I shouldn't complain about that.

1097:

is very useful, and exactly the sort of thing that's hard to find elsewhere online (I don't know of any other free online source that has such detailed information on such matches). One further point to make is that

2078:

I'd love to seen an example or two of "game articles" that you refer to. Of course, the AfD discussions I've seen were for page which were not an "article" in narrow sense, only tables of results and data. Over on

1550:

journalists who want to know when Nottinghamshire last won the County Championship, that sort of thing. Your list examples can never be used as an external research, nor are they particularly interesting to read.

1807:

This discussion has run for about a week, with a healthy number of participants. I have the feeling that pretty much all the arguments have been brought out. How do people feel about closing this and moving on?

1467:

not international test matches, remember -- is much smaller and more geographically limited. I personally would maintain a higher bar for obsessively detailed information on Pokemons and similar phenomena. --

1815:. Counting individual participants, I came up with 8 favoring deletion, 6 favoring inclusion, and 3 neutral/other. (By tradition, this is not a majority vote, and others may come up with different counts.) 1457:

Cluttering the Article namespace for an arbitrary temporary period is not necessarily better, or much different, than doing so indefinitely; the content of articles being worked on belongs in User space.

1972:

games will make it practically impossible to determine what is POV and what is not. These articles will be created on a mass scale, and I don't think there are enough people out there to manage it all.

2166:

Now that's what I call "an article," not indiscriminate info, or a just list of information. I hope pages like those can be held up as examples of notable events, covered in an "encyclopedic fashion."

1583:

AFAIK, the inclusion of these is supported by policy, and there is no policy which says they shouldn't be included. If you don't think they should be included, you need to push for a new policy, eg.

1017:

I got nothing against the game articles existing temporarily for use in a future season article. Nothing against that at all. But can't they live in an article in userspace or something, like

206:

although that's an extreme example. There are, however, still 2,460 NHL and NBA games per season and even 512 NFL games per season. By comparison, there were 21 Season Two episodes of

1937:

If they are working on a bigger article and re-writing it in summary style with smaller articles, then those smaller articles again need to stand on their own and comply with policy.

1865:

Great idea!! rather than delete the articles, move them to a seperate thing. this would be good for this type of thing. you could eventualy also include weather events and the such. -

2129:. Admittedly, both articles need more sources and a lot more work, but it is also pretty obvious that they are notable events that have verifiable details. There is also a category 436:

I don't know which specific policy that it violates, but it would seemingly rewrite some AfD precedents. Having articles on individual sporting matches is the sports equivalent of

146:

Sam, if we were to include our most off-hand, obscure articles as precedents of what constitutes notability, we could include literally anything. And I mean everything. A word like

842:

Such seasonal reviews, including match reports, have their uses in biographical accounts of players, journalistic research following a season, and research into a team's history.

956:

no subsequent knockout phase. (There may sometimes be a second, knockout competition, but that's a completely independent competition and usually regarded as less significant).

1793:

I think this is a very bad idea. Who is going to be able to keep track of wikipedia if it is cut up into little slices? It is much better to keep the whole thing in one place.

261:(nine teams) have more games in a season than almost any television show has episodes in a season, and large sports leagues like, again, Major League Baseball or the NHL have 683:

I agree that these games/matches should be included in a season summary, but a seperate page for each game/match of the regular season is bit overduing it. For example, the

1616:

No concerns about notability, since practically anything can go into the book, and people will only be taking the most relevant bits out to create Knowledge (XXG) articles.

2126: 1301:

I am still interested if anyone wants to counter my arguments. If you can't, I suggest we consider the matter concluded. Knowledge (XXG) should default to keep anyway.

834:

Sports results are traditionally noted and published by the media, but this does not mean that media sources have the sole right to publish them. Exaggerating for effect,

1312:

insufficiently notable or the wrong type of information to include. If you're a hard-line inclusionist, fair enough, but that's not how I understand the community norms.

1164:

These articles clearly improve Knowledge (XXG)'s cricket coverage. Is there any reason to delete? (Envy that baseball doesn't have a similarly-committed set of fans is

819:

final matches, and similar, or is it just supposed to remove individual articles on them? If it's the former, I object quite strongly, becuase of the following reasons.

1204:, for that matter. They're the rules, they're all important to Knowledge (XXG) in equal amount, and like 'em or not they're there to be obeyed (unless you subscribe to 176:

article, or if it's a particularly important match to any of the teams involved, it should be noted in the team article. All individual sport matches should be valid

863:

As for the second interpretation, merging individual matches into seasonal reviews, I can see the merit of that, and won't argue to a great extent about that point.

106:, for instance, would qualify as a game that is an event in of itself, but said article includes the scores of the playoff games as well as the big match. But, say, 2122: 2083:

there was healthy discussion to discourage "almanac" pages that were little more than just data/results. The alternative you're referring to sounds promising....

77:

include championships and matches/games where notable events occur, as well as events of global interest which are played only annually or less often, like the

516: 855: 552: 245: 73:

I created this discussion to move the cricket match articles discussion out of AfD and to a centralized place, hopefully to reach a consensus and a policy.

1180:

Regardless of what I think of the cricket game articles (I think it should be fairly self-evident by just looking up), I'm not sure it's valid to say that

2133:

that has more examples. I can't speak for their merits since I haven't read the articles listed there, but if they have been following the suggestions at

1454:

The "answer" to your argument about merging of articles has been made several times above, by myself and others, but I'll restate it here. It is twofold:

1094: 652: 651:

articles, but those American football games either have historical significance or have been extensively written about. Also, we do have pages listed at

1329:. They are verifiable and are not original research. Therefore the default, as Sam Korn states above, is to keep, unless consensus forms to delete at 757: 1021:, out of the way of the main encyclopaedia so we don't have to worry about this and so they can be wiped out at the end of the season no-sweat-like? 265:

multiples more games in a season than television shows have episodes in a season. Besides, as you yourself admit, there are other resources such as

1856:

I've placed my vote, but as I'm heavily interested in sport (not cricket, though, which I find to be tedious) I'll no doubt be regarded as biased.

1006:

merged pages simultaneously. I think the authors' solution is an ingenious one, although I'm also not surprised that it's aroused some opposition.

107: 17: 780: 210:. I can't comment on non-North American sports since I don't know their schedules as well, but I doubt the pattern is significantly different. 1289:

clauses at each other all day, but as the section says, what harm do they cause? They are verifiable and they have use in external research.

874:

the lines of include vs. delete. I'll probably start a 'the case for merging' section when I have a few minutes to write up my opinion again.

1885: 728: 1655:

Fewer eyes for the almanac project may also be a discouragement to the existing cricket editors. (We all want our contributions to be read!)

1221:

On the contrary. It is not true that "rules are rules are rules". I did actually see a discussion just a couple of days ago about whether

2183: 2100: 2047: 1373:... oh, and rational policy discussions like this one, attempting to consider reasons and find consensus, ought to be on WP servers too. 1055: 27: 483:

Which kind of proves the point that we can throw these clauses around forever. And note that AFD precedents have changed, as per the

1907:

If a person wants to write one particular sport result that has no merit in expanding anything further than its own context, such as

926:

are notable and worthy of an article; a description of a routine regular-season baseball or football game or cricket match is not. --

1059: 257:

There are lots of television shows, yes, but there are lots of sports leagues, too. Even small professional sports leagues like the

2178: 2095: 2042: 770:

In my argument above, I changed (early on) the word "non-notable" to "routine, non-championship" because notability is used as a

1533: 1089:

The other point is whether said articles are encyclopedic. I think that probably they aren't as standalones, but probably they

1908: 886: 807:

OK. I must admit I'm still not quite sure what this is all supposed to achieve - is the goal to remove all results of all non-

576:

To me an encyclopedia article implies some level of summarisation, analysis, overview and is not a record of ephemeral events.

1536:(those were in AfD over the last few weeks; I don't remember the exact article titles). There is a reason for the guideline 1529: 776: 644: 110:

is not worthy of an article to me, because it's just a regular season game and it could be summed up, if it matters, in the

1640:

You get a nice "finished project" in the end, in the sense that your book can have an index, table of contents, and so on.

1131:

Apologies for starting a new section. It seemed to be the easiest way to make a new point that has not been made before.

1982: 1104:, which the vast majority of cricket fans would consider an authoritative reference on the game, has match summaries of 1100: 718:

one. Now imagine having all the matches of all the seasons of all the leagues in all the world. Is this encyclopedic?

284:

standards that are in place and firmly wrested in policy - there is a reason Wiki is not paper is listed at the top of

511:

Much of the basis of the controversy, I think, is whether it is a good idea for Knowledge (XXG) to become any sort of

39: 1018: 352:). Regular-season matches, by and large, however, are better suited for Wikinews and should be transwikied there. -- 1623:, as I think an almanac is a fine WikiBooks project, whereas it's (at best) a controversial Knowledge (XXG) project. 714:, but then we get to the extreme of having an article about a friendly match, without any repercussion, such as the 2191: 2146: 2108: 2069: 2055: 1996: 1962: 1944: 1928: 1918: 1890: 1860: 1851: 1841: 1831: 1822: 1797: 1787: 1774: 1765: 1748: 1727: 1709: 1696: 1681: 1670: 1595: 1563: 1554: 1544: 1523: 1498: 1471: 1439: 1415: 1405: 1402: 1391: 1377: 1368: 1347: 1316: 1305: 1296: 1273: 1251: 1233: 1212: 1174: 1121: 1069: 1049: 1039: 1025: 1010: 998: 987: 976: 962: 930: 912: 893: 878: 867: 802: 791: 784: 764: 744: 733: 715: 691: 676: 662: 632: 620: 599: 585: 567: 546: 531: 494: 444: 431: 408: 356: 319: 310: 292: 278: 252: 214: 190: 133: 119: 96: 62: 51: 1881: 724: 1688:

I think it would be tossed off WikiBooks. "Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic." from

756:

sports, there are no "play-offs" - each game is almost equally as important (possibly with the exception of the

643:

articles, I am against separate articles for every single match. Yes, we do have a number of articles listed at

2173: 2090: 2037: 640: 258: 484: 244:

and search up all the matches he has played, or I could get his most important performances by looking up the

102:

Personally, I am against articles on individual regular games, although I am for articles on sporting events.

47:, I think they should be allowed to continue it for the rest of the season, although not setting a precedent. 551:

What purpose would that serve? For a start, if we were going to subst anywhere, it would be in articles like

1626:

The almanac would still contain all the information necessary for anyone who wanted to do detailed research.

1325:

The problem is we have little policy to guide us. They're not strictly speaking news reports as defined in

974: 1584: 900:

Some non-championship games eventually achieve notability because of unusual circumstances or events. See "

1818:

Where do we stand? It seems unlikely to me that further discussion will result in any sort of consensus.

1629:

More "official" (IMHO) than the alternate solution of putting all the relevant articles in User namespace.

1364:

every game week-by-week for every sport's major league in every country. Not even just for a few weeks.

687:

page gives a summary of each game of the series rather than having a page for each game of the series. --

1827:

I know what you mean.... keep the page though, it's a useful pointer when these things kick off again! --

1560: 839:

encyclopedias. There are also websites and books devoted to collecting such results over several seasons.

515:, that is, "a comprehensive presentation of statististical and descriptive data". In the same sense that 441: 353: 1634: 560: 470: 437: 38:

I think it's helpful to separate out the general question from the question of what to do with all the

1677:

being what happens, it should probably be run by them first just so we don't have AfD War II on this.

1054:

I moved the discussion to the transclusion pages for ease of reference. Although not that easy. See

162:

I really don't see a problem with deleting content that shouldn't be here in the first place. We have

1876: 1117: 909: 719: 783:. But when there is some special notability to the event, it is clearly worthy for inclusion, e.g., 386: 92:

I remain completely unconvinced that Knowledge (XXG) is a good place for routine sports results. --

2167: 2084: 2031: 1915: 1592: 1313: 1007: 959: 711: 48: 1689: 1848: 1667: 970: 103: 1537: 889:, but I personally favours seasonal overviews, which are automatically, i think, encyclopedic. 835: 684: 659: 542: 349: 828: 2012: 1978: 1866: 1828: 1520: 1461:

underlying question is whether Knowledge (XXG) should attempt to be a sports almanac or not.

1344: 1293: 1066: 799: 491: 424: 340: 2134: 2080: 2016: 1987: 1620: 1330: 1326: 1286: 1222: 1205: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1181: 1151: 1143: 1136: 846: 608: 285: 181: 177: 2027: 1875:

is exagerated, as some agreed that single matches could be merged into a single article.

1838: 1113: 905: 629: 615: 556: 520: 156: 111: 1401:

are distinct from each other, and I feel that sports results are a detail, not a topic.

1811:

As the creator of the discussion, my reading is that the discussion resulted in, truly,

740:

I agree with most of the arguements above. As said above, season summaries are plenty. -

2130: 1925: 1912: 1857: 1724: 1693: 1613:

We don't end up with several hundred articles cluttering the Knowledge (XXG) namespace.

1588: 1551: 1412: 1388: 1036: 995: 984: 864: 761: 688: 628:

a whole season using the data or wants time to move the data into an appropriate Wiki.

582: 564: 428: 316: 289: 249: 168: 130: 82: 78: 59: 1357: 1201: 1185: 1147: 1142:

My second point is that these pages do actually fulfill the more important policies.

824: 2139: 1745: 1706: 1678: 1495: 1436: 1383: 1356:

What harm they do is mostly dilution of Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation by disregarding

1302: 1270: 1248: 1230: 1209: 1171: 1046: 1022: 875: 673: 477:

Much encyclopedic material is of interest only to enthusiasts of a particular subject

405: 344: 307: 275: 237: 211: 187: 116: 1225:

is still needed. I am an IAR fan, so we'll disagree there. On the other hand, you

425:

The length, depth, and breadth of articles in Knowledge (XXG) is virtually infinite.

423:

What part of the policy does it violate? It wouldn't happen to be the one that says

2063: 1959: 1938: 1794: 1762: 890: 656: 538: 288:), and the information verifiable. Which is the only criteria for inclusion on WP. 233: 1958:

problems, then I have no other objections, but I do think they're big problems. --

1208:, of course, in which case rules discussion isn't likely to get anywhere anyway). 232:

for this content. Say I wanted to write an article about an up and coming English

885:

Sport results certainly falls withint the "almanac-type" infomation mentioned in

1974: 1784: 1781: 1771: 1341: 1290: 1063: 771: 488: 1992: 1374: 1365: 812: 808: 648: 612: 596: 299: 207: 172: 1333:. It basically turns upon one's definition of encyclopedic. Some will cite 741: 366: 315:

I think we can almost agree, then. See my first compromise attempt above.

1819: 1541: 1468: 927: 923: 901: 788: 528: 270: 266: 241: 93: 1847:

proposal above and would like to see what people have to say about it.

1528:

Well, no, that argument quickly disintegrates when you get things like

512: 1519:

If it's valid to a select group of people, then it's valid, end of. --

1335: 816: 391: 2026:

to keep its domain defined and discrete), with related discussion

1538:

Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information

1285:

My tuppence is that they should stay. I think we could all throw

655:, but all of playoff games have been merged into yearly articles. 487:, something I've noticed used on AFD and attempted to delineate. 147: 559:, I find it baffling that the individual results are recorded on 248:

page. And you want to remove that resource. Thank you very much,

1770:

Perhaps they should start a new sister project: WikiAlmanacs. —

1744:

I hate to say it, but that has been the proposal all along.

1411:

objections to that, so long as most of the details are kept.

108:

New England Patriots v. Carolina Panthers, September 18, 2005

859:

probably cover most of what people would want to add anyway.

706:

article is more than enough. I admit that "anything" can be

302:

about half-done on my flash memory drive. But I don't think

823:

Results and match reports can be written in a way which is

2022:

There's a proposed project, "WikiStats" or such (I prefer

698:

I am strongly against having an article per match, when a

1157:

My third point is to repeat Sam Vimes's. These articles

781:

Phantom of the Opera, Her Majesty's Theatre, June 4, 1989

2007:

This issue is alive and well, and still causing a rucus

1093:

as part of a larger article. For example, I think that

370: 1968:

I agree, and I think the fact that these will involve

523:

article have wisely chosen not to include accounts of

1435:no answer to it. I am willing to be proved wrong. 1035:

however, that that might be the path of least pain.

563:, but not on the seasonal page or a split-off page! 389:is creating an almanack that will, in time, exceed 2127:2006 Michigan State vs. Northwestern football game 1633:trying to post detailed summaries of, say, every 1045:about Knowledge (XXG), nothing is ever easy. :P 2123:1985 Oregon State vs. Washington football game 1060:Knowledge (XXG):Transclusion usage in articles 1135:done before" or "it's against policy", I say 8: 1431:not been answered. I can only assume there 856:Northamptonshire County Cricket Club in 2005 553:Northamptonshire County Cricket Club in 2005 246:Northamptonshire County Cricket Club in 2005 2019:rule of indiscriminant information lists. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Centralized discussion 1095:Worcestershire County Cricket Club in 2005 1081:I'm not entirely certain about this, so I 1062:at some point, but never got round to it. 653:Category:National Football League playoffs 1540:. You have to draw the line somewhere. -- 1534:People who have been accused of being gay 2121:Here are two such single-game articles: 1909:Asian XI v International XI 20 June 2005 1723:many people seem to be concerned about. 343:or its equivalents for other sports (as 2013:this discussion on WikiProject Football 1229:have not answered my other questions. 1146:is far less necessary as a policy than 1056:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Template namespace 28:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Template namespace 1530:List of bands with only men as members 1058:. I did mean to knock something up at 777:Radiohead in Montreal, August 15, 2003 645:Category:National Football League lore 395:in depth (though probably not renown). 1139:: these pages improve WP as a whole. 373:. I was pretty stunned by this claim: 26:See also prior related discussion at 7: 845:The seasonal reviews do not violate 581:are not notable in retrospect). 1188:are somehow 'more necessary' than 887:Knowledge (XXG):What is an article 517:encyclopedias are not dictionaries 44: 24: 1953:Plagarism and first-hand research 1396:Sam Vimes, I would not object to 182:Wikipediai s not a sports almanac 1991: 1986: 1643:Noone has to mention Pokemon! :) 1019:User:CricketFan/match summaries 304:individual regular-season games 1852:01:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 1842:16:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 1832:20:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 1823:20:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 1710:19:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 1697:19:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 1682:18:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 1671:01:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 1596:14:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 1564:02:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 1555:06:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 1545:01:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 1524:22:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 1499:18:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 1472:18:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 1440:17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 1416:14:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 1406:14:10, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 1392:06:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 1378:22:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1369:22:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1348:21:40, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1317:20:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1306:20:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1297:20:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1274:19:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1252:19:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1234:19:24, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1213:18:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1192:. Nor is it valid to say that 1175:18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1122:03:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC) 1070:18:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1050:18:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1040:17:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1026:16:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1011:10:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 999:09:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 988:08:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 977:08:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 963:08:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 879:19:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 868:15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 803:08:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 792:23:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 765:05:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 663:03:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 639:As a major contributor to the 633:16:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 621:04:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 600:01:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 586:12:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 568:06:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 547:01:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 532:23:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 495:11:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 445:00:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 432:21:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 409:21:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 357:14:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 320:16:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 311:16:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 293:16:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 279:16:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 253:16:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 215:16:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 191:11:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 150:(anime community slang) would 134:05:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 120:05:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 97:03:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 63:19:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 52:16:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 1891:09:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 1788:19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 1775:19:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 745:23:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 734:09:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC) 2192:16:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 2147:15:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 2109:16:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2070:16:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 2056:16:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC) 1997:16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1963:19:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1945:16:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1929:07:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 1924:Sounds fair enough to me... 1919:23:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC) 1798:22:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1387:think the content is valid) 692:03:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC) 677:09:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 1861:10:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 1766:17:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 1749:10:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 1728:10:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC) 1690:Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks 894:02:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 40:2005 English cricket season 2214: 2137:then they should be good. 1601:New proposal: WikiBook it! 1585:Knowledge (XXG):Importance 785:The Concert for Bangladesh 716:Argentina v England (2005) 69:The case against inclusion 1196:is 'more necessary' than 931:23:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) 913:22:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC) 269:for cricket information, 1934:in their user page area. 641:National Football League 471:Knowledge (XXG):Fancruft 339:game in an article like 259:Canadian Football League 1803:Closing the discussion? 365:I noticed this post by 751:The case for inclusion 647:as well as all of the 58:substantial articles. 1873:6 favouring inclusion 1705:/me smiles sweetly. 1635:Major League Baseball 1403:The Literate Engineer 1127:What harm do they do? 561:Current sports events 240:. I could then go to 164:hundreds of thousands 969:to be duplicates. - 758:C&G Trophy Final 369:over at one of the 1619:No concerns about 1170:a valid reason!) 104:Super Bowl XXXVIII 1889: 1780:...or WikiTrivia. 836:Hurricane Katrina 732: 685:2005 World Series 525:every single game 350:2003 World Series 2205: 2188: 2186: 2181: 2176: 2144: 2142: 2105: 2103: 2098: 2093: 2052: 2050: 2045: 2040: 1995: 1990: 1879: 1867:User:Chickendude 1637:game next year.) 906:downright boring 722: 618: 341:2005 in baseball 2213: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2189: 2184: 2179: 2174: 2172: 2140: 2138: 2106: 2101: 2096: 2091: 2089: 2053: 2048: 2043: 2038: 2036: 2009: 1955: 1898: 1805: 1647:Disadvantages: 1603: 1129: 941: 753: 616: 557:2005 NFL season 521:2005 NFL season 427:by any chance? 112:2005 NFL season 71: 36: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2211: 2209: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2171: 2168:David Spalding 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2088: 2085:David Spalding 2073: 2072: 2035: 2032:David Spalding 2008: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1999: 1954: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1935: 1897: 1894: 1858:User:Nach0king 1804: 1801: 1791: 1790: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1725:User:Nach0king 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1700: 1699: 1685: 1684: 1661: 1660: 1656: 1653: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1638: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1617: 1614: 1602: 1599: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1561:Idont Havaname 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1458: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1320: 1319: 1314:Stephen Turner 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1216: 1215: 1159:will be merged 1128: 1125: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1029: 1028: 1014: 1013: 1008:Stephen Turner 1002: 1001: 980: 979: 960:Stephen Turner 940: 937: 936: 935: 934: 933: 916: 915: 897: 896: 882: 881: 861: 860: 851: 843: 840: 832: 795: 794: 752: 749: 748: 747: 737: 736: 695: 694: 680: 679: 666: 665: 636: 635: 624: 623: 603: 602: 593: 578: 577: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 499: 498: 497: 481: 480: 479: 456: 455: 454: 453: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 442:Idont Havaname 414: 413: 412: 411: 403: 399: 398: 397: 377: 376: 375: 374: 360: 359: 354:Idont Havaname 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 313: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 185: 169:FIFA World Cup 160: 139: 138: 137: 136: 123: 122: 83:Tour de France 79:FIFA World Cup 70: 67: 66: 65: 49:Stephen Turner 35: 32: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2210: 2193: 2187: 2182: 2177: 2169: 2165: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2148: 2143: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2110: 2104: 2099: 2094: 2086: 2082: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2051: 2046: 2041: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2020: 2018: 2014: 2006: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1961: 1952: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1905: 1902: 1895: 1893: 1892: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1874: 1871:I think that 1869: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1814: 1809: 1802: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1773: 1768: 1767: 1764: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1729: 1726: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1669: 1665: 1657: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1642: 1639: 1636: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1607: 1600: 1598: 1597: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1565: 1562: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1500: 1497: 1492: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1473: 1470: 1465: 1459: 1456: 1455: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1441: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429: 1423: 1417: 1414: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1399: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1390: 1385: 1384:Monty Panesar 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1337: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1299: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1275: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1253: 1250: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1235: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1168: 1162: 1160: 1155: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1138: 1132: 1126: 1124: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1109: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1096: 1092: 1087: 1084: 1071: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1048: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1004: 1003: 1000: 997: 992: 991: 990: 989: 986: 978: 975: 972: 967: 966: 965: 964: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 939:Neutral/mixed 938: 932: 929: 925: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 911: 907: 903: 899: 898: 895: 892: 888: 884: 883: 880: 877: 872: 871: 870: 869: 866: 857: 852: 848: 844: 841: 837: 833: 830: 826: 822: 821: 820: 818: 814: 810: 805: 804: 801: 793: 790: 786: 782: 778: 773: 769: 768: 767: 766: 763: 759: 750: 746: 743: 739: 738: 735: 730: 726: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696: 693: 690: 686: 682: 681: 678: 675: 671: 668: 667: 664: 661: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 634: 631: 626: 625: 622: 619: 614: 610: 605: 604: 601: 598: 590: 589: 588: 587: 584: 575: 569: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 549: 548: 544: 540: 535: 534: 533: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 509: 496: 493: 490: 486: 482: 478: 475: 474: 472: 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 446: 443: 439: 435: 434: 433: 430: 426: 422: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 415: 410: 407: 404: 402:encyclopedic. 400: 396: 393: 390: 388: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 372: 368: 364: 363: 362: 361: 358: 355: 351: 346: 342: 337: 336: 321: 318: 314: 312: 309: 305: 301: 296: 295: 294: 291: 287: 282: 281: 280: 277: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 255: 254: 251: 247: 243: 239: 238:Monty Panesar 235: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 216: 213: 209: 204: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 192: 189: 186: 183: 179: 174: 170: 165: 161: 158: 153: 149: 145: 144: 143: 142: 141: 140: 135: 132: 127: 126: 125: 124: 121: 118: 113: 109: 105: 101: 100: 99: 98: 95: 90: 86: 84: 80: 74: 68: 64: 61: 56: 55: 54: 53: 50: 46: 41: 33: 31: 29: 19: 2163: 2064: 2023: 2021: 2010: 1969: 1956: 1939: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1896:New proposal 1872: 1870: 1864: 1855: 1845: 1835: 1826: 1817: 1813:no consensus 1812: 1810: 1806: 1792: 1769: 1759: 1666: 1662: 1646: 1609:Advantages: 1608: 1604: 1582: 1490: 1432: 1427: 1426: 1397: 1361: 1334: 1300: 1284: 1226: 1166: 1165: 1163: 1158: 1156: 1141: 1133: 1130: 1110: 1105: 1099: 1090: 1088: 1082: 1080: 981: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 862: 806: 796: 754: 707: 704:championship 703: 699: 669: 579: 524: 485:Pokemon test 476: 473:also state: 394: 385:Effectively 384: 303: 262: 163: 151: 91: 87: 75: 72: 37: 25: 2135:the project 1829:PopUpPirate 1589:··gracefool 1521:PopUpPirate 1108:this sort. 827:and from a 800:PopUpPirate 772:term of art 234:spin bowler 2024:WikiSports 1970:individual 1904:In short: 1114:Loganberry 825:verifiable 813:NBA Finals 809:Super Bowl 649:Super Bowl 387:WP:Cricket 371:match AfDs 300:Jason Maas 208:Family Guy 173:Super Bowl 1926:Sam Vimes 1913:AllyUnion 1694:Sam Vimes 1552:Sam Vimes 1413:Sam Vimes 1389:Sam Vimes 1037:Sam Vimes 996:Sam Vimes 985:Raven4x4x 865:Sam Vimes 762:Sam Vimes 710:, even a 689:Holderca1 583:Dlyons493 565:Sam Vimes 429:Sam Vimes 317:Sam Vimes 290:Sam Vimes 250:Sam Vimes 131:Sam Vimes 60:Sam Vimes 2141:z4ns4tsu 1849:Colin M. 1679:Lord Bob 1668:Colin M. 1249:Lord Bob 1210:Lord Bob 1047:Lord Bob 1023:Lord Bob 924:The Play 902:The Play 876:Lord Bob 674:Swamp Ig 469:Doesn't 438:fancruft 345:R. fiend 308:Lord Bob 276:Lord Bob 271:HockeyDB 267:Cricinfo 242:Cricinfo 212:Lord Bob 171:and the 117:Lord Bob 2164:Thanks! 2065:Johntex 2011:As per 2002:abuses. 1960:Mareino 1940:Johntex 1877:Mariano 1795:Sumahoy 1763:kelvSYC 1398:details 1106:exactly 910:gohlkus 891:Circeus 720:Mariano 708:Notable 657:Zzyzx11 609:are not 592:day?... 539:Mysidia 513:almanac 81:or the 34:Comment 2081:WP:NOT 2017:WP:NOT 1975:JHMM13 1916:(talk) 1785:msh210 1772:msh210 1659:versa. 1652:page.) 1621:WP:NOT 1342:Hiding 1336:Wisden 1331:WP:AFD 1327:WP:NOT 1291:Hiding 1287:WP:NOT 1223:WP:NOT 1206:WP:IAR 1198:WP:NOR 1194:WP:NOT 1190:WP:NOT 1182:WP:NOR 1152:WP:NOR 1144:WP:NOT 1137:WP:IAR 1101:Wisden 1064:Hiding 850:point: 847:WP:NOT 817:FA Cup 700:season 670:Delete 660:(Talk) 489:Hiding 392:Wisden 286:WP:NOT 180:since 157:Sindhi 1428:still 1375:Barno 1366:Barno 1227:still 1083:think 787:. -- 613:Denni 597:Nabla 527:. -- 406:Peter 188:Peter 152:never 148:glomp 45:below 16:< 2131:here 2125:and 2028:HERE 1839:Jeff 1358:WP:I 1345:talk 1294:talk 1202:WP:V 1200:and 1186:WP:V 1184:and 1148:WP:V 1118:Talk 1067:talk 908:. -- 829:NPOV 742:Haon 712:goal 630:Jeff 543:talk 492:talk 367:jguk 263:many 178:CSDs 1820:MCB 1542:MCB 1532:or 1491:All 1469:MCB 1362:Not 1167:not 1150:or 1091:are 971:Mgm 928:MCB 789:MCB 779:or 702:or 529:MCB 94:MCB 85:. 2190:) 2145:\ 2107:) 2068:\ 2054:) 1985:) 1981:| 1943:\ 1837:-- 1587:. 1433:is 1120:) 798:-- 760:. 611:. 545:) 236:, 30:. 2185:✍ 2180:✉ 2175:☎ 2170:( 2102:✍ 2097:✉ 2092:☎ 2087:( 2049:✍ 2044:✉ 2039:☎ 2034:( 1983:C 1979:T 1977:( 1888:) 1886:c 1884:/ 1882:t 1880:( 1783:— 1746:] 1707:] 1593:☺ 1591:| 1496:] 1437:] 1303:] 1271:] 1231:] 1172:] 1116:( 973:| 831:. 815:/ 811:/ 731:) 729:c 727:/ 725:t 723:( 617:☯ 541:( 184:. 159:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Centralized discussion/Sports results - Knowledge (XXG)

Index