Talk:2016 Gagarin Cup playoffs

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

To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
Requested articles (Sports)
Requested articles (Association football)
Requested articles (Association football women)
Requested articles (Motor sports)
Requested articles (Estonian sportspeople)
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."
Expand : Professional sports (crucial article explaining the salaried undertaking of sports)
* Sport industry (currently a sub-stub)
Photo : for pages listed in Category:Wikipedia requested images of sports and games and sub-categories.
Stubs : work on articles in Category:Sports stubs
Update : List of world sports championships
Other :
- Translate the page of sport in each country from corresponding article in other language Wikipedia to English Wikipedia which was marked in red.
- Categorize: Gather all (major/olympic) sports to be part of this project
- RfCs: answer requests for comment

Note on appeal against game results[edit]

Sabbatino, could you please desist from unilateral actions on that section? You are welcome to use this discussion page to express your concerns, including your arguments on why the section looks unencyclopedic for you. 37.145.40.49 (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I keep removing it, because that section doesn't meet encyclopedic requirements. It's just plain text with too much unneeded detail. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about what makes it unencyclopedic. Is there any argument supporting that opinion? 176.14.101.83 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]