Wikipedia

Talk:World Netball

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Nimdil in topic Female only professionally
Learn more about this page

Female only professionally

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to this article: [1] in Polish internet press, according to INF, professional Netball should be reserved for females only. I think that's something that should be said in the article, if true. Nimdil (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Merger Proposal

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

The article Netball at the Olympics Netball and the Olympic Movement should be merged into this article. First, since Netball is not an Olympic sport it does not fit into the "X at the Olympics" series. Second, the two articles overlap in content. Third, the basis thesis of the Netball at the Olympics is that the International Olympic Committee has somehow "recognized" it. Indeed, the first sentence is, "Netball is an Olympic recognised sport." There is a major conceptual problem here. The International Olympic Committee recognizes International Federations and not particular sports. (Some International Federations govern multiple sports, and the IOC evaluates the quality of the International Federation rather than any particular aspect of the underlying sports. For example, the IOC could not care about the fitness level required to play, but cares about the quality of the Anti-Doping program. So when the IOC "recognized" the IFNA, it was not recognizing netball as a sport or making a commentary one way or the other about whether netball was a "worthy" sport. The phrase "Olympic-recognized" may be an attempt to add glamor to 32 sports such as Sumo Wrestling, Korfball, Mountaineering, Powerboating, and Wushu. So, the phrase "Olympic-recognized sport" makes no sense. So, perhaps the article should be merged into the "International Federation of Netball Associations" and the discussion of the IOC's recognition of the IFNA incorporated there. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Oppose: The scope of the article Netball at the Olympics goes beyond International Federation of Netball Associations. Also oppose on the grounds that this policy is not consistent with the treatment of other Olympic sports. Opposed on the grounds that "Olympic-recognized sport" is never mentioned in the article. Given that, of course it makes no sense. If proposals are all other Olympic sports to be merged with their international federations, I may offer conditional support. --LauraHale (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand the argument that you are making. The logical fallacy is that your argument assumes that the IOC's recognition is the end point of its deliberations. After the IOC recognizes an IF, it can later decide to make that IF's sports Olympic Sports. At the point that a sport becomes an Olympic sport, it can have a "X at the Olympics" article. With netball, the only determination that the IOC has made is that the IFNA has been recognized. I would agree that other similar sports, such as Sumo wrestling and Powerboating, should also not have "X at the Olympics" articles and their Olympic asperations should be covered in the article of the appropriate International Federations. Racepacket (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply


The above quote demonstrates the fallacy in the argument put forth by racepacket. The Olympics themselves recognise SPORTS. Recognition of a sport requires an international sport federation. Given the controversial nature of this proposal, the lack of factual accuracy it is premised on and the animosity between the person proposing the merger and the primary contributors to the article, the proposal needs to be taken Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. --LauraHale (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I agree with both quotations, but view both as completely consistent with my argument. When the Olympics include a sport into the Olympic schedule, it becomes an Olympic sport, prior to that time, the sport's International Federation is recognized by the IOC, but the sport is not. It is a two-step process and we can't treat it as a one-step process. Note that the first quote did not use the phrase "Olympic regconised sport."
I disagree that use of Wikipedia:Proposed mergers is needed here, but anyone is free to include it on that list if they feel it would help. Racepacket (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose If I see one more Olympic and Netball thing from Racepacket I think I might scream! Laura has written a comprensive article on the subject and would be too long to include here, by the time this page is expanded to talk about all the different bodies which make up the federation and the history of it and its competitions. Although Laura does need to link the article in question here , but she already knows that! KnowIG (talk) 09:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Just no! One is an article about an organisation, which has a board, directors, initiatives, affiliations, and other aspects peculiar to organisations. The other is about a "movement", a "struggle", to have the sport become part of the Olympics. While it isn't there yet, it has come a long way, and does receive funding from the OIC. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
The IFNA receives funding from the IOC because the IOC has recognized the IFNA. If the IOC finds that the IFNA no longer meets its criteria (e.g., an inadequate Anti-Doping program), the funding will stop even though all attributes of Netball as a sport did not change. This determination is centered on the IFNA, not on netball. Racepacket (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose, although it's kinda moot at this point now that the tag has been removed. "Netball at the Olympics" and the IFNA are two entirely different things. If anything, a better merge target would have been the main Netball article. Whether the IOC officially recognises either a sport or its governing body (according to its website the IOC recognises both) has, by itself, no bearing on the notability of the topic (namely, netball and the Olympics). Nor is calling netball "Olympic-recognised" an attempt at glamorising (yes, that's how it's usually spelt in Commonwealth English) the sport: IOC recognition is merely a part of the sport's history. As to the appropriateness of a separate "Netball at the Olympics" article, the sport may not have been "at" the Olympics yet, but there are enough references documenting its recognition by the IOC and subsequent efforts to get netball included in the Olympics programme to justify a separate article IMO. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
The nomenclature problem is that once the IOC "recognizes" a sport, is called an Olympic sport, rather than an "IOC recognized sport." Before the IOC "recognizes" a sport, there is only an IOC-recognized international federation. Racepacket (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Timing for the reference of interested parties WP:MERGE specifies that we allow at least one week for editors to come here and comment on the merger proposal. Once there has been inactivity of a week's duration in this discussion, we can move toward closing it. Please do not delete the merger templates prior to reaching consensus. Racepacket (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

At LauraHale's insistence, we have listed this at WP:PN so please do not remove the merger tags until they get to us. Racepacket (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The argument that the IFNA article and the "Netball at the Olympics" article are talking about two different topics overlooks the fact that the IFNA is the main proponent for advancing Netball's case at the IOC. Most advocates for including netball in the Olympic Games are connected with IFNA and its national governing bodies. So the recent moves toward including netball are for all practical purposes recent moves by IFNA toward including netball. Racepacket (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Request for clarification: As the two topics are not about the same thing, I would like to see a draft of a potential merged article. It is fine to propose the merge but some one would need to actually do it. As racepacket is the only one supporting this merge at this time, I would like to see how he proposes to do so. --LauraHale (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

(ec) Basically, I would keep everything in the IFNA article, and I would take the Olympic article, convert it into active voice, which would cause the subject of most sentences to become the IFNA. For example:

In 1995, the IOC recognized the IFNA as an international federation[9][10][11][12] after a twenty year period of lobbying[10][13] and a two year probation period.[12] This makes netball eligible to be considered for inclusion in future games.[14][15] One attempt was made in 1989, when the IFNA proposed to include netball in the West German World Games.[16] This failed.[note 2][16]

Recognition has meant the IFNA's national chapters <<or members or NGBs>> could become full members of their countries' national Olympic committees.[10][13] Because the IFNA received provisional status in 1993, its national chapters were able to apply to their national Olympic committees since that time.[13] The All Australia Netball Association is one national organisation that has become a full member of its national Olympic committee.[11] In 2004, IOC recognition of the IFNA was renewed.[17] The IFNA has made Olympic sport status part of its long term strategy towards continuing to grow the game.[17]

So I would re-write the Olympic Games section in that manner. I would integrate the other sections by placing the bias section at the front of the IFNA "History" section, and the other sections could be moved over easily. Thank you for asking, but with the IFNA (and its national chapters) leading the charge to advance netball at the IOC, I don't understand how two separate articles are justified. Racepacket (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comment Look, there are of course decent arguments on both sides; it's not hard to imagine a good single encyclopedia article that covers both topics, and it's also not hard to imagine having two articles that complement each other. But we will not get to either of these positive outcomes by arguing about which approach is "right" and which approach is "wrong." It's simply not a helpful argument to have. My preference would be that those wishing to build content be permitted to do so more or less in peace; I oppose this suggestion, not because it is an entirely unsound argument, but because it seems (especially in the context of a number of other ongoing debates) like the merge proposal was made to prove a point. We're all here trying to build a better encyclopedia; arguing about whose approach to doing that is "wrong" will never get us there. -Pete (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Template for expanding

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I was trying to think of a comparable article to help give this one necessary structure to potentially bring it up to good status. (It is currently probably at about start.) FIFA looks like a good model. The sections it has that might be relevant to improving this one include: History, Structure, Recognitions and awards, Governance and game development, Criticism, FIFA structured tournaments and Sponsors. It doesn't have much information on national federations so the bits I've included there could probably be removed. Anyone else have thoughts on how to organise the article? Or are there any other articles which might be a good model for improving this one? --LauraHale (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on International Netball Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on International Netball Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Netball Federation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_Netball&oldid=1210996200"