Talk:last sixteen

"Sweet Sixteen" is the exact analogue to "last sixteen" as the entry at that page demonstrates. Where terms are exact analogues, it is reasonable to note it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "exact analogue", but regardless, the problem was apparently that the entry linked to [[sweet sixteen]], which was clearly irrelevant. —Ruakh TALK 21:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And I emended it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw. That's why I wrote "linked" rather than "links". :-)  —Ruakh TALK 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

last sixteen
This just seems to be last X where X is an integer. Last 64, 32, 16, 8, 4 and 2 are most common just because that's how knockout tournaments work; you can be in the last three as well (the gap between one semi-final and the next one, there are three competitors remaining). SoP, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IMO this ought to be at RFV, where it would need to be cited as defined (a particular round in a tournament) distinct from the number or group of competitors that make up the round. Equinox ◑ 22:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

delete per Mglovesfun. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is a correct term. See also Single-elimination tournament. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect: to Sweet Sixteen Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sweet Sixteen is a specific term for one particular last sixteen - US Basketball. The elimation stage of the World Cup would not be called the Sweet Sixteen, and it would be misleading our readers to redirect it there. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @TAKASUGI Shinji, I'm not disputing its correctness, only its validity here. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, in that case, we must explain it in last. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Kept as no consensus. — Ungoliant (Falai) 07:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion: August 2012–September 2017
Moved from RFV:

In order to give our users accurate information, we need to know which sports use this nomenclature. The existing context sport is inaccurate AFAICT. It applies outside sports, eg, chess, and doesn't apply to all sports, eg, US football or basketball. DCDuring TALK 08:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For the sake of accuracy, you're not disputing existence are you? This sort of thing should be dealt with on WT:RFC or Talk:last sixteen. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of meaning, which warrants more effort at attestation than goes into RfC. Obviously RfD didn't lead to improving the quality of the entry. As with any term that is not covered in other dictionaries, we need to attest to its meaning. These are the entries that differentiate and justify Wiktionary relative to its competitors. They should be among our best. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that a list of all sports which use the term is becoming encyclopaedic. On the matter of the  context template, that could be replaced with, but that's a redlink.  Not also that last eight and last four both use the same template. Spinning Spark  16:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * @DCDuring yes it is an RFC issue per your own comment. No rule against adding citations to a term listed at RFC. This looks to me like a backdoor way to get it deleted, by hoping nobody bothers to add citations for 30 days then this can get illegitimately deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the preceding discussion, I have moved said discussion here from WT:RFV. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed --WF on Holiday (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)