Talk:Cynna Kydd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Cynna Kydd is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Cynna Kydd appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 20, 2006.
Peer review Cynna Kydd has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Maintenance An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Flag Cynna Kydd is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been selected for the featured article queue of the Australia Portal.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
WikiProject Australia To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Contents

[edit] Uncategorised

Nice work, Ambi! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

She also became engaged to partner Garth Kydd

Does that sound a little tautological (unless I've misread what "partner" means)? Andjam 11:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Partner --> Fiancee --> Husband/Wife. Ambi 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is a top article, should be a guideline on how all sports articles should be written. When you compare this article to say, Ted Whitten, it puts it to shame. Rogerthat 02:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I do appreciate further any feedback you can give, too. :) Ambi 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I like the article, with my only issue being the image is a little small. Not much one can do though other than source another one. :( Nice work. -- Longhair 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - any chance you could stop by the FAC? I'm sure the image is bound to come up as an objection, in which case I'll do what I can to find an alternative, but I'm not hopeful. Ambi 03:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
(Talking about "engaged to partner") Well, following your logic, you can't become engaged to someone who isn't your partner (excluding arranged / sham marriages), can you? Andjam 14:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defection

This issue is one of the problems of having reviewers who know nothing about the subject at hand. In this case, defection was the term near-universally used in the media. She made preparations to re-sign with the Kestrels, and at the last minute chose to instead sign with their local rivals. I really don't see how, in this context, the term "defection" is pejorative. "Transfer" implies a formal league process, impliedly also one with the consent of the club. This was plainly not the case here, and to repeatedly introduce that wording is to introduce inaccuracies into the text. Rebecca 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue is one of the problems of having major contributors who are too personally involved with the subject matter to maintain NPOV detachment. "Defection" DOES read as a perjorative term, implicitly suggesting abandonment rather than a straightforward move. I note that the whole section regarding this "defection" seems to have been added AFTER the peer review and the FA candidacy. I wonder what what would have been made of it during the FA selection process. The fact that the media used a POV term does not in itself suggest that it is accurate or encyclopaedic- or that it should be repeated here. (It would be tolerable if the term itself was placed in quotes signifying that it is directly parroting the media line). The term "transfer" is widely used in sports for moves between clubs. It does NOT in any way imply that the move is sanctioned by all concerned parties, rather only that the player has moved. If her move was not conducted under due process according to league rules, then one would assume that she would not have been allowed to join the new team. "Transfer" or a direct synonym is the appropriate NPOV term. Badgerpatrol 03:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It may be NPOV, but it isn't accurate. I don't recall the media using the word "transfer" to describe the move even once. My dictionary defines "defection as being "To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group". Not only does that describe what happened here, but I fail to see how that reflects pejoratively on the person in any way. Rebecca 03:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You don't think to describe an individual as abandoning a team to join their opposition is pejorative? I find that surprising. I think it is a little disingenuous to have added that kind of term following the FA selection discussion, but given the time lag between the review and the appearance on the main page it probably couldn't be helped. I find the use of such blatantly POV terms highly objectionable in a FA. However, since you seem unwilling to listen to reason (I notice you have already rv'ed my changes which you bizarrely claim are "plainly wrong") I won't waste any more time, particularly given the nature of the article concerned. Badgerpatrol 04:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "transfer" would be accurate, while "defection" portrays how it was controversial. A simple "left" or "leaving" could be better to use, but I couldn't come up with a good sentence that would still convey what is meant; "controversial" and "local rivals" isn't enough. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, "Defection" in quote marks (signifying that that is the spin that was put on it by the media) is acceptable. The use of the word as a simple statement (implying that the author believes the term to be a matter-of-fact representation of the event) is emphatically not. Even a sentence reading along the lines of "the move was widely portrayed in the media as being a "defection" to the team's fierce local rivals" would be preferable. Unqualified POV terms like that shouldn't slip through the FA process (and probably would have been picked up back then had it been present). I wonder if this version of the article would have been approved, to be honest- I would suggest that since it was the previous version that was actually selected as an FA, then that should be the one that is displayed on the main page- especially given that it has been nearly 6 months and this version is very substantially different. However, that's not the policy, I guess. Badgerpatrol 04:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You're missing the fundamental point - calling something a defection is not a POV term. It is a perfectly neutral way of describing events, and fits the dictionary definition exactly. This is why this was the manner in which the media reported events. You're not only reading in pejorative complications into the word that don't exist, but now you seem to be accusing the media of being biased too. Bah. Please do us a favour and fulfil your promise above. Rebecca 04:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No, you are the one missing the point. I am again surprised (to speak euphemistically, for politeness) if you genuinely think the media is always free from bias, but that's largely a separate issue. As a starting point, provide links please to reliable sources describing the transfer as a "defection". I don't see any in the article as it stands- please point them out if I have missed them. Secondly, avoid blanket reversals of other editor's contributions. Thirdly, maintain civility. We certainly do disagree over whether or not the term "defection" is POV- it seems that Centrx above also feels that it implies controversy and goes beyond a plain and simple description of a move from one team to another- and hence is inherently non-neutral. You seem to feel that my compromise suggestions for substituting NPOV terms are "plainly wrong". I would like to hear a decent explanation why you think this is the case, and your own suggestions for how the wording could be altered to place everyone in agreement. All the best, Badgerpatrol 05:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've already provided sources illustrating that the defection was indeed called a defection. Should you choose to do any research yourself, or indeed to check the sources that I've provided, this would be bleedingly obvious. Furthermore, it was a controversial transfer - one of the most controversial in the league's history - as is illustrated in the cited sources - so Centrx was right on the money. And yes, I will not accept substituting "transfer" when what happened was not a "transfer". If you insist on changing the perfectly fine wording, you come up with something that isn't plainly wrong. Rebecca 05:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
A) Which sources specifically refer to the move as a "defection", to save me or anyone else trawling through endless articles about a second-rate netball player. I can't see any in the article or in our discussion above; B) I'm glad you have now contradicted yourself and accept that "defection" is a non-neutral term, that's a start; C) Why do you object to the word "transfer" when that is the standard term for moves between sports teams?; D) Why did you blanketly revert my changes? Badgerpatrol 13:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
A) There's about three sources quoted in that paragraph. If you're so passionate about questioning the content, I'm sure you can tire your little head and look through all three articles. B) "Defection" is a perfectly neutral word, as I have repeatedly explained above. I was simply replying to your suggestion that it implied controversy (although the dictionary doesn't agree) by pointing out that the sources I use will verify that it was, indeed, a very controversial defection. C) It may be the standard for moves between sports teams in baseball or football, but it plainly doesn't describe what happened here, which is why the media didn't use the term at all. D) What changes? I only reverted your insertion of factually wrong material into the article while it was on the main page, a hardly unreasonable move. Rebecca 03:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Your inability to field even tiny criticisms or changes with civility [1] and arbitrary and out-of-process blocks for editors who disagree with you in good faith (a very, very disappointing act and an unmitigated abuse of admin powers on a number of levels)[2] suggests to me that you feel you "own" this article. Coupled with your evident inability to grasp the issues at hand (or even the basics of the english language) and flip-flopping over semantics, it seems there's very little point in continuing this discussion. Badgerpatrol 14:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, everybody, can we chill the incivility? I have rewritten the intro in a way that (IMHO) captures the facts while putting the characterization of "defection" in the mouths of the media. IMO, "defection" is a pejorative word. It is often associated with being a "traitor". Thus, calling Cynna Kydd a defector is a POV stance. What makes it OK is that a lot of people in Melbourne thought (think) this of her. What's important here is that we document that this is not just the opinion of a few Wikipedia editors but that it was the opinion of the Melbourne media and presumably of a large section of the Melbourne population who cared about this sort of thing. There's nothing wrong with expressing pejorative judgments in Wikipedia as long as those judgments are sourced. Citations are even better.

--Richard 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is still the section matter-of-factly entitled "defection to... (etc)". As I describe elsewhere, I don't object to the term PROVIDED it is made clear that it refers to the media description of the event (i.e. it's put in quote markes or similar) rather than the author's own matter-of-fact description. Of course "defection" is a loaded and perjorative term, implying betrayal, and can't possibly be a neutral description. Your changes are common sense and a step in the right direction. Badgerpatrol 16:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How does "defection" imply betrayal? It was a neutral term widely used to describe the event, as cited to the sources I provided. You're reading in implications that simply aren't there, as shown by the dictionary definition I quoted to you. Moreover, now you're trying to add implications of some bizarre media bias. Seriously, I think it's about time you took a step back from the article and thought "okay, I'm angry, but do the changes I'm making actually make any sense?" Rebecca 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I hope we are converging on a consensus here. I don't think Rebecca will object to my edits. As for the section titled, "Defection to the Melbourne Phoenix", it did not jive with the current text in the section so I changed the title to "Experience with the Melbourne Phoenix". There is some commented-out text that does fit the title "Defection to the Melbourne Phoenix" and that does provide references for the phrase "Neele defects to the Phoenix". However, I'm hesitant to reinstate that text without getting agreement here on the Talk Page. So I just moved the title "Defection to the Melbourne Phoenix" inside the comment where it should stay until we develop a consensus on whether the commented title and the text should be reinstated.
--Richard 17:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I do object to the change, as it isn't encyclopedic in the least. "Experience with the Melbourne Phoenix"? We're building an encyclopedia. If you can't copyedit an article and still have the sentence make actual sense, then perhaps you should stop trying to copyedit articles. Rebecca 00:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be making false accusations

I don't appreciate Rebecca falsely accusing me of vandalism. Cyanna Neele is a quite legitimate name of this person, and a quite legitimate possibility for the article name. In fact, it was already indexed in categories under that name, even though it wasn't what you saw if you looked at those categories, before I changed it.

But then when I found out there wasn't even a redirect from that name, so that if someone entered that name into the "Go" box it wouldn't work, or if someone linked to that name in an article it would be a redlink, it called for immediate attention.

At least after her reversion, things didn't go back to the totally unacceptable status which existed previously. Now that formerly missing redirect does exist. Gene Nygaard 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I assumed it was vandalism, seeing as it was being moved to a never-before-used misspelling of a prior name, an apparently bizarre move. As I explained on your talk page, please be more careful with things like this in future. Rebecca 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
My apologies too--I mistyped the name, and the redirect from the maiden name already existed; Rebecca just overlooked the need to change the indexing in the categories when she previously moved the page. Gene Nygaard 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Any chance of a free photo? [3]. — Matt Crypto 10:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll need to poke Ambi about it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No luck. My camera was unable to be fixed and had to be thrown out, so I'm completely sans camera at the moment, and thus have been unable to take a suitable replacement at all this season. Rebecca 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathetic tone

Nice to see an FA about an Australian netball player :) However, I find the tone a bit too sympathetic. There's a constant stream of "she failed to do X, probably because of Y". Disappointing form? Nerves associated with captaincy! Couldn't get a job? Must have been her netball commitments. Cut from the national team? "The national squad was at the time enjoying an unusual glut of strikers". I find this tone just a bit too sympathetic - if she didn't make the national team, it's obviously because she wasn't good enough, for example. Stevage 10:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the concerns, but I'm not sure how to fix them, because I don't necessarily agree with your examples. Your first example may be fair enough, but I do recall it being reported as such in most of the articles I read. The sentence about not being able to find work was the subject of a newspaper article which said exactly that, and I don't think, given this, that the wording as is is problematic. The final example, though, was pretty accurate - the Australian team at the time had about five shooters who would have qualified for just about any other national team in the world, but of course, only two available spots. This is backed up by the sources I used, and I think it's a fair characterisation to make. Rebecca 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why(ne)

Why is this person a featured article? Its crazy, nobody outside of Australia has heard of her. I demand a new featured article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.136.209 (talk • contribs) 13:06 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Write one, then. Or wait less than 24 hours. Sheesh. — Matt Crypto 12:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree!

I'm from Australia and I've never heard of this person either. Stupidest FA ever.

[edit] Why(ne)2

This article may be well structured, but the triviality of its content is so extreme that it turns me off opening the Wikipedia.

Featuring refers to the quality of the article, and Featured Articles can otherwise on any topic that Wikipedia would normally accept, whether general or obscure. If you don't like it, don't read it. — Matt Crypto 14:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The answer "if you dont like it, dont read it" is like saying: if you dont like that eysore in the street dont look at it. I didnt read the full article but the title stuck in my mind, like anything that passes in front of my eyes. I cant help thinking I am not the only one who thinks this kind of article draws negative impressions of the Wikipedia, which is splendid in many places. --Feraudyh . 18:16 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that one of the advantages of Wikipedia is that many less "important" topics can be — and are — treated encyclopedically. So it gives a positive impression of Wikipedia, if you're prepared to accept that an encyclopedia can cover more topics than you might personally be interested in. I also have to wonder if, had this article had been written about (say) a male basketball player who had played for the United States national basketball team, whether people would be complaining so much about "extreme triviality". — Matt Crypto 21:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] no featured article

amazing how this became a FA??--TheFEARgod 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

same here, the article doesnt bear any importance outside a small group of people (namely netball fans from Australi.). there are manyred links in the article which is imo very bad for an FA (as was the case with yesterday's article, which was about a slightly famous person). I think these FA's arent the way they used be before. there would be real quality articles about actually important topics. but wikipedians chose it so all we can do is complain. --Suleyman Habeeb 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree this is nn outside a small group of people (Gnevin 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
Even though the article is not bad, the topic was not good enough to be a FA. Dominican 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The article isn't bad, but it's a far cry from a featured article, that's for sure. Especially since it only has one picture and that picture is both small and blurry. Just compare it with almost any other FA and you'll easily notice the difference. CptUnconscious 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong agree and then some..

That this should be a wikipedia featured article degrades the entire Wikipedia project. An article about an obscure player of an obscure sport is about as important (for an international, widely-read website) as an article about a high school swim-meet or someone's cat. This is a major downturn for wikipedia. --86.192.102.116 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a blatant waste to use the featured article section of the main page soley to showcase the current state of the art in writing wikipedia articles when you can easily have a two fold approach whereby you feature a well written article, and also, perhaps even more importantly for readers and not just editors, you feature a subject that has many interesting flow on articles...the feature article is just too valuable a piece of main page real eastate to waste on a matter so shallow as one woman's six year hobby of being a netball player, it is simply terrible that this happens. Especially since tens of thousands view wikipedia for the first time each day at its current huge growth rate, the amount of eyeballs viewing the main page is priceless, and if this really is about human knowledge, than some topic of human knowledge with at least and ideally some major depth of field should be featured. If this is becoming a pattern, and by the gist of some comments here I fear it may be, then it surely needs to be addressed in the strongest most possible way. I agree maybe once or twice a month you could have an obscure topic featured, but only if it has some kind of quaint quality to it. The choice of this article here is to be condemned for sure...and I am certain that a great many new users who have visited today for the first time based on all the hype, only to see this featured must surely be left with an anticlimactic sentiment compared to what could happen if you gave them a gateway to some real human knowlege with an expansive coverage with link upon link of depth of field like game theory or anything...anything but this shocking aberration we see featured here today. More thought needs to go into this it is a disgrace.203.208.88.138 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Get more, but most of all, get that fuzzy one OFF here! It's horrific. :|

The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.216.215 (talk • contribs) 13:06 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yea, that's the only thing missing from this article. It really needs more pics. Otherwise, great job to all who worked on it. --Brownings 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDF stats link broken

The very last ref on the page is broken, I've tried to hunt down the page on the site but with no luck, anyone else? --15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No luck here either on the PDF file. I did find her player profile page though. I've added it to the links so that we have at least one working. --Brownings 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
The one and only external link on a main page FA was broken? Oh dear. Badgerpatrol 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prod and notabiblity

Shes a featured article. She has to be notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Being a featured article on 'pedia isnt criterion for notability :\ MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 18:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made up my mind, but I suspect she is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia- just. But it is a very, very poor argument to state that she is notable because her biography has appeared as an FA. The nomination was reasonable and the article should not have been speedily kept, according to the criteria, as far as I can see. It's bad process, and a mistake has been made. Badgerpatrol 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Process or otherwise, it's not common sense to AfD a Featured Article on the day that it's featured. — Matt Crypto 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not common sense to select a main page FA where the subject is of dubious notability- I personally think the AfD would have failed, but I don't think it was a ridiculous nomination by any stretch. The speedy keep criteria are very clear and specifically preclude situations not covered therein. Badgerpatrol 18:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Being part of a major country's national sports team meets WP:BIO, does it not? Crystallina 18:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, but given that it has been put on the main page, why not wait a few hours until the next Featured Article has appeared before nominating it for deletion? That way, we avoid a "whopping big AfD notice on the Featured Article" fiasco. — Matt Crypto 18:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it isn't 100% clear to me that she does fulfill WP:BIO, to be honest. National selection is not specifically mentioned. It probably would survive an AfD debate- although not, I suspect, with unanimity. However, that's a separate point to the out of process speedy close of the AfD discussion (discussed in more detail on JoanneB's talk page). For clarification, it wasn't me who nominated the article for deletion Badgerpatrol 18:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
What on earth compels people to argue that an article should be deleted before having read it? If you had even read so much as the full lead section you would have realised that she has spent much time in the national team, as well as being a former national league MVP. So yes, it is "specifically mentioned". Rebecca 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh dear. Please read WP:BIO- where national team selection is not specifically mentioned. You are slightly confused- perhaps because you cannot assess this article's quality or its subject ,objectively. I have read Cynna Kydd- in depth- and I agree with others that it is not of featured article quality. By the same token, I have stated elsewhere (REPEATEDLY) and above that whilst I don't think an AfD nom is a ridiculously bad shout, I wouldn't nominate it or vote for it to be deleted and I strongly suspect it would survive the AfD- although WP:BIO sports is slightly ambiguous for a case like this, I reckon it meets the criteria for a keep. Now, please read my comments and inform yourself before shooting off at the hip in future. Thanks. Badgerpatrol 13:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
She has played in the highest league and that alone fulfills WP:BIO right?
She is or was an international netball player and that's the end of that. We've got articles on football players who have never represented their country in any competition. --Tony Sidaway 22:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How is this an FA

This is some random netball player, I am sure she is worthy of an article on Wikipedia but an FA. There has to be better things on wiki to make an FA then something like this. Reading this article isn’t really teaching me anything new. I couldn’t careless about a netball player and I am pretty sure most people fell the same. The next thing we know Elmo is going to be an FA or maybe an FA will be on some footballer in the 3rd division. Give me a break wikipedia. I know that the higher ups at wiki are loaded with aussies or kiwi's but still try thinking about the US where netball is hardly known much less followed by anyone. 128.227.11.194 23:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Right on, anon! The US is constantly under-represented and increasingly marginalized on Wikipedia. This site exhibits this deliberate, blatant and systemic bias most clearly when it has articles on things that are of no interest to Americans. Think before writing, people! When editing a page, ask yourself, "could anyone in the US care less about this?" before submitting. If the answer is "no", then for goodness' sake write about something else that's important. Noone wants to read about frickin' Australia or Africa or whatever it is, or other pointless countries like that. Won't someone please think about the USA viewpoint for a change? — Matt Crypto 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I dont understand the whole anti US felling the rest of the world has. Sure are current leader might not be the best, but is that a vaild right to hate the US. I dont hate the french because of Jacques Chariq, nor do I hate the brits beacuse of Tony Blair (watching the house of commons on CSPAN is a hoot) but I think the US should get at least some thought on wikipedia. After all is was started by a guy living in the US, most of its servers are in the US and on the fund raising drives US citizens donate money to wikipedia. Wikipedia is also very image concisions, they always want to like very "encylopedic" however if I open up an encylipeda am I going to find a long drawn out article on Cynna Kydd. I think so. Hell I am surprised that this didnt have a VfD on the ground that its "un-enyclopedic". Wikipedia needs to make up its mind, either be a general knowledge source (nothing wrong with that) or be a hardcore enyclopedia but being something in the middle is only making you look bad.EdYlC 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Matt the above comment has to be one the most narrow minded if seen on wiki . This is an international project not an American one . Their are many many articles on wiki that most people in the us or even out side their country would have any interest in for example gaelic football . Now this article is equally entitled to be here as baseball. As for Won't someone please think about the USA viewpoint for a change? i belive wiki has a WP:NPOV policy (Gnevin 23:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
EdYlC wiki is Wiki is not paper . This is a good articial just shouldnt be on the front page(Gnevin 00:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC))
I'm pretty sure Matt was being very sarcastic. Crystallina 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand that it isn’t an paper or general knowledge source however I thought that an FA was supposed to show off Wikipedia and how good it is and also to teach people something. Who cares about some net ball player. Sure this can be an FA because it is written well but must it be on the front page? And yes yes this is an "international project" but that still means that ALL people must be taken into account no?
If you're unhappy with what articles are being given FA status, then vote on Featured Article candidates instead of complaining about ones already accorded the status. - Mark 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Gnevin, I was poking fun at the "try thinking about the US" mentality. I didn't expect for anyone to take me seriously ;-) — Matt Crypto 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
As an Australian I fully agree with Matt; 70% of the total articles being about the US is not enough! [ælfəks] 02:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think 70% of the articles is a good figure. Maybe we could raise it to 80%. After all, 90% of the world's English-speaking population lives in the United States. - Mark 02:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important aspect about this not being worthy of FA status isn't the fact that most people don't care about netball, it's moreso that this article simply isn't FA calibre. By bickering over the triviality of the subject, you guys are simply side-stepping the fact that this article just can't compare to the quality of other featured content. CptUnconscious 02:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And what criteria, exactly, do you think this doesn't meet? Rebecca 03:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the article is horrible, but it's not FA material. First and foremost, I feel the article is a little POV. You're not going to agree with me as witnessed by your stance in the "defection" section of this talk page, but to label the whole thing as a defection is definitely POV, especially labelling the section on her career with Phoenix as "Defection to Melbourne Phoenix". The whole defection thing reflects poorly on Cynna's character, which obviously implies a bias is present, not to mention that the section doesn't even contain the details of her so-called "defection". Look at articles like Wayne Gretzky and Johnny Damon; with their respective "defections" the articles don't seem to convey this sense of POV and most certainly don't contain strong words like defection as prominently as the section headings.
Secondly, the article lacks the visual appeal brought by accompanying pictures. This article was on the front page of Wikipedia, the page that almost everyone visiting the site will see, and all it had to show was a tiny, blurry picture.
Thirdly, the structure of the article is questionable. It doesn't seem to flow very well and I don't feel headings are used effectively (case and point the defection heading). Not to mention Mrs. Kydd is still rather young and hasn't accomplished much outside the realm of netball and at times this article shows that. It seems like the writers of this article were really stretching her life story, just to make this article about medium in length by Wikipedia's standards.
Finally, despite what you all have said, this subject just doesn't seem important in the slightest, even to Australians. She even has the lowest importance on WikiProject Australia's importance scale. This reflects poorly on Wikipedia, which should be featuring content that is not only high quality, but of worldly importance. If WikiProject Australia is concerned about getting Cynna Kydd's article to featured status, then their priorities are definitely mixed up. CptUnconscious 16:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions about the prose and headings and help with copyediting, but the objections about notability are simply bullshit. She is an Australian international and former national-league MVP in one of the most dominant countries in perhaps the most popular women's sport on earth. Since when did systemic bias become a totem instead of something to be eradicated? Rebecca 08:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an American and I disagree strongly with those who argue that "if Americans don't want to read it, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia and certainly shouldn't be FA". As far as I can tell, this is the English-language Wikipedia, NOT the American Wikipedia. I have to say that I had never heard of netball before the Cynna Kydd article hit the main page but maybe that's one purpose of an encyclopedia... to fill in gaps of knowledge. I'm glad that I now sort of know what netball is. --Richard 06:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a well written article, but oh my goodness, it is just a bit short and a bit irrelevant to be a FA. I am not sure I would have supported it had it just been nominated as a good article, never mind a featured article. Subject matter has to count for something. Legis 11:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, quick anti-American gripe - Mark, how do you get 90% of the English speaking population of the world in the U.S. (pop 300 million). Did you remember to count the UK (62 million), Ireland, Canada (32 million), Australia (20 million), South Africa (47 million), New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, Fiji, half of Africa and most of the Caribbean? I'd figure it more like 55%. Sorry, I don't normally rant on Talk pages, but that got my goat. Legis 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think (hope!) that Mark was being ironic. But in case he wasn't, don't forget the 350 million English-speakers in India (though for most of those it's not their first language). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 17:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was being ironic. I know full well that the US makes up only a small proportion of the total number of English speakers in the world. - Mark 08:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Pretty funny the comments about the importance of the subject of this article. It's probably worth pointing out that netball is the most played women's sport in Australia, and Australia frequently dominates the sport internationally. It's really not an obscure sport, and the Australian team is obviously not obscure, and by the looks of things, this player is one of the more notable within the league. Far more notable than FA's about various suburbs around the place, anyway. Stevage 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an amateur (or at best semi-professional sport) sport which is at the most optimistic on a par with, say, club cricket or semi-professional soccer in the UK, or perhaps minor college-level sports in the United States. This is a player who has never even been selected for the Commonwealth Games (on the last occasion, withdrawing due to "low motivation", i.e. she couldn't be bothered) and to my reading and having done a bit of research, does not even seem to be indisputably amongst the best netball players in Australia. If we had an ordinary club-cricketer or a journeyman football semi-pro as the main page FA there would be similar notability issues. As expressed above, I feel this individual IS notable enough to be in Wikipedia, and hence (under the current rules) suitable for an FA. Now that articles within projects are starting to be routinely ranked for importance (for example, this one is "low") many might feel the time is right to include an "importance" criterion in the FA selection process. Those that are questioning the selection of this article as an FA (some, myself included, might also question it separately in terms of basic quality) are merely articulating that idea. Badgerpatrol 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to all FAs, or just those that appear on the main page? I don't see any benefit in discouraging people from bringing "unimportant" articles up to FA status. However I could see an argument for prioritising "important" articles on the main page. Stevage 08:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point. In the first instance, I would advocate an extra layer of selection for the main page FA to take importance and educational value into account. This is conceivable now that many articles are beginning to be labelled on an at least semi-objective value scale. I doubt if it can be unambiguously said that this Cynna Kydd and others like it truly exemplify our best work (and as stated above, I'm fairly surprised this one slipped through the net even under the current system). Badgerpatrol 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
FAs currently work on a system of actionable objections. That the subject matter is fairly boring, and the article is fairly short, is not really actionable. Just like it's not really actionable to point out that bulbasaur is a pokemon character. Andjam 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'm advocating a change in the rules so that notability and importance can be directly invoked in FAC discussions- and that there ought to be a separate sub-category containing those FAs suitable for the main page. Badgerpatrol 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is valuable and all that but it doesn't belong here. Please take this up over at Wikipedia talk:What is a featured article?. Thanks. --Richard 16:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Objections to this article being featured/on the front page

I've got news for you all. ANY subject that passes the test for a wikipedia article is potentially a Featured Article. Any Featured Article can potentially appear on the front page. If you don't like that, then stop bitching about this particular article and get a consensus to change the rules on what can become a featured articles and/or which featured articles are to be considered for/placed on the front page. 84.65.213.6 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manifest silliness?

Rebecca,

Can you explain why you reverted this as "manifest silliness"?

The current version uses the word "transfer" which you objected to above. I can't imagine that this is the version that you wanted to revert to.

I am reverting to my latest version but am glad to discuss this if you have a good reason for preferring the current version over my most recent version.

--Richard 03:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See above, under "defection". Rebecca 00:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I suggest that we attempt to resolve this dispute through formal or semi-formal processes. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 00:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh... I hope we don't have to go down that road. I'm trying to serve as an informal mediator between Rebecca and Badgerpatrol prior to more formal processes.
Rebecca, I have read the discussion above about "defection". I admit that I have not read every sentence closely and so maybe I've missed something. However, the main bit that I got was that you don't believe that defection is a pejorative word and Badgerpatrol does. I disagree with you on that point but let's leave that alone for now.
I'm trying to find a compromise text that will satisfy both you and Badgerpatrol.
Can you explain what in this text is false, POV, silly or otherwise unacceptable?
Kydd is currently the goal shooter for the Melbourne Phoenix in the Commonwealth Bank Trophy. Kydd had been a part of the Kestrels since 2000, and was the Kestrels captain from 2005 until she moved to the Melbourne Kestrels. In early 2006, she was nearing the end of negotiations to renew her contract with the Melbourne Kestrels when, at the last minute, she chose instead to sign with their local rivals, the Melbourne Phoenix. Her sudden decision to join the Phoenix aroused a much public controversy and was portrayed in the local media as a defection from the Kestrels.
Points made in the above text...
1) She was about to renew her contract withthe Kestrels
2) She chose at the last minute to sign with the Phoenix
3) Her decision was perceived as sudden
4) The decision aroused much public controversy
5) The local media portrayed this decision as a "defection"
So, what's wrong with these points?
--Richard 01:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a few factual and grammatical errors in that text, but these are easily fixed. Assuming the comment at the end is referenced and placed in quotes and other instances of the term "defection" in the article are excised (or similarly referenced and placed in quotes), I'm reasonably happy with it as a framework. Badgerpatrol 01:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I object to the revised text, because, quite frankly, it is crap. The first two are obvious, and I don't necessarily object. The third would be obvious to anyone who had read any of the sources, making "was perceived as" completely unnecessary weasel wording. The fourth is simply wrong - while it was controversial (if either of you had read any of the material it would be obvious that it was one of the more controversial defections in the history of the league), it didn't really "arouse much public controversy" (as again you would know if you'd bothered to read any of the sources concerned). The final point is again unnecessary weasel wording - it meets the dictionary definition of a defection (as has been pointed out by myself and others here), and the use of "portrayed" implies that the media were up to something in using that phrasing. I'm really not inclined to budge on this until the two of you a) actually take seriously that this is an encyclopedia article, and needs to be well-written, concise and accurate (rather than using this article as a vehicle for playing games), and b) actually bother to read the cited sources before questioning my interpretation of them, or their own veracity. Rebecca 01:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
To this extent, I only discovered today that much of the defection section didn't make any sense, because Badgerpatrol had, for no apparent reason, torn out two paragraphs which explained the whole departure, leaving absolutely nothing between her hiatus at the end of last season and her settling in at a new team this May. This is further evidence that you're more interested in playing semantic games than actually creating an improved article. Rebecca 01:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Provide diffs please. (Although I think you'll find you are grossly mistaken). Badgerpatrol 01:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, I've been tagged at times for being "marginally uncivil". Your tone has a distinct edge to it that is really grating to the point that it gives me a taste for what it must be like to be on the receiving end of incivility. Can you lose the nasty tone? It's counterproductive.

That said, if I look past the nasty tone, I am beginning to see where you are coming from. I do not have the same concern that Badgerpatrol about using the word "defect" IF that is what most of the sources say. I don't care that it is a pejorative word. Benedict Arnold defected to the British. Many people defected to the other side during the Cold War. If netball fans perceived it as a defection, then call it a defection. Badgerpatrol may disagree with this. We are not necessarily "on the same side".

My text was an attempt to take the section titled "Defection" and summarize it in the lead paragraph. If you want to lose the weasel words, it's OK with me (but maybe not with Badgerpatrol).

You say that two important paragraphs were deleted by Badgerpatrol. He says he didn't do it. Regardless of who did it, I would like to see the two paragraphs that you say were deleted. I am basing most of my editing on what is already in the article so there is a bit of "stumbling in the dark". In particular, I am unable to find any sources about Cynna Kydd's defection via Google search and there don't seem to be any relevant external links in the article itself. I don't have access to archives of Australian newspapers. Can you provide sources either via posting actual text to this Talk Page or providing URLs to link to?

Thanx.

--Richard 05:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of the verb "to defect"

From The Free Dictionary

intr.v. (d-fkt) de·fect·ed, de·fect·ing, de·fects 1. To disown allegiance to one's country and take up residence in another: a Soviet citizen who defected to Israel. 2. To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group: defected from the party over the issue of free trade.


From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 : to forsake one cause, party, or nation for another often because of a change in ideology 2 : to leave one situation (as a job) often to go over to a rival <the reporter defected to another network>


Seems obvious from these definitions that "to defect" is a pejorative word. It implies betrayal and treason especially in war but also in business and sports. However, it's OK to use it in a Wikipedia article if there is a general agreement that the word accurately describes what happened.

Now, in sports, the level of betrayal is not great. Do we really expect athletes to be loyal to their team for their entire careers? So, using the word "defect" is a bit hyperbolic. I mean she didn't actually do anything illegal or unethical, did she? No, I don't think so, but sports fans feel strongly about these kinds of things and so her switching to the Phoenix was perceived by the fans and portrayed by the media as a "defection".

Do we need to say all that in the article? Probably not. As Rebecca points out, it's kind of obvious and all those weasel words do make for flabby text. I'd like to have another go at writing an intro that makes everybody happy but I'll wait until Rebecca comments on the points that I've made here.

--Richard 06:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

More definitions available here [4]. The unqualified use of the term "defection" is POV and totally unacceptable in an encyclopaedic article. Badgerpatrol 12:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I see nothing in those definitions about betrayal. "To leave one situation (as a job) often to go over to a rival <the reporter defected to another network>" is exactly what happened. Ditto with "To abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group". This is what I mean about playing games. Rebecca 02:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
So, to be clear, you have read the definitions provided by my link above and you still don't think that "defection" is a pejorative term? Badgerpatrol 02:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Very clever. The two definitions I quoted from your post just a couple of hours ago describe perfectly what happened in this case, and neither definition includes any suggestion of it being pejorative. Rebecca 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. The two definitions you quoted were not from my post. I did however provide the link to the external dictionaries. If you have read the definitions provided there (or even, to be frank those provided by Richard above) and you cannot see that defection is not NPOV, then I feel you are being obtuse. I would also like you to provide diffs regarding the accusations you made last night. I have tried to adopt a conciliatory tone and I of course favour an honourable solution without external dispute resolution. Please be reasonable. Can we discuss some kind of compromise wording that will suit us both? Badgerpatrol 03:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have now cited three different definitions of why this is perfectly neutral. You're now shifting into the realm of pure querulousness. Rebecca 03:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Some definitions- conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (as to a person, cause, or doctrine) : DESERTION (merriam webster); the act of deserting or renouncing loyalty to something to which one is supposed to be loyal, such as one's country, duty, religion, or party. (wordsmyth); desertion from allegiance, loyalty, duty, or the like; apostasy: His defection to East Germany was regarded as treasonable. (random house 1997); 1. Act of abandoning a person or cause to which one is bound by allegiance or duty, or to which one has attached himself; desertion; failure in duty; a falling away. 2. Abandoning one's country, often by betraying it; "the Soviet officer's defection to the United States." (ultralingua); Act of abandoning a person or cause to which one is bound by allegiance or duty, or to which one has attached himself; desertion; failure in duty; a falling away; apostasy; backsliding. (webster 1913). Etc. Please, let's try and come up with a compromise wording. You don't like "transfer", and I don't like "defection". What about "move", or "relocate"? Neither isperfect, but if you won't accept transfer then I can't think of too many others. Badgerpatrol 04:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that none of those definitions have anything to do with the context in which the word is being used here. The three relevant definitions have no pejorative connotations. Stop being obtuse. Rebecca 04:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Gee, it's hard to get a word in edgewise. This is the second time that my "save" hit an edit conflict.
I disagree with Badgerpatrol. I have to confess that when I first read this thread, I thought to myself "OF COURSE defection is a pejorative term, is Rebecca totally out of touch with the English language?" However, as I've thought more about it, I understand her point better and I agree more with her on this point than with Badgerpatrol.
"Defection" in its most commonly used meaning IS pejorative. However, in the context of this article, it really isn't that much of a slam and I don't think Rebecca is being as obtuse as Badgerpatrol seems to think. In fact, I'm starting to feel that Badgerpatrol is a bit on the obtuse side. Let me try to explain this again.
I think this whole "pejorative vs. not pejorative" discussion is really quite pointless. "Defecting" is fundamentally a pejorative word but it is not that big a deal when you're talking about sports.
It seems clear to me that "defecting" to a rival is less pejorative in some circumstances than others. When a top CIA or KGB agent or official defects, this is major league treason. He/she had better not be planning on returning to his/her homeland anytime soon. Same is true for a top corporate official. If the VP of marketing at Oracle had defected to Sybase, it would have been big news and there might have been lawsuits over it.
However, in sports? Feh, it may be pejorative but only in the sense that fans of the Kestrels may have been upset and maybe even reviled her over a beer or two while fans of the Phoenix may have rejoiced. Maybe even a few barroom brawls broke out over the controversy.
But fundamentally ,it was just a professional career move. As I said before, there was nothing illegal or unethical about Kydd's moving over to the Phoenix. Presumably she got more money out of it. Good for her. To say that she "defected" is just the normal hyperbole that you'd expect from a sports writer.
BTW, it occurs to me that, here in America, we would hardly ever characterize such a move as "defection". The days when we expected professional athletes to have any loyalty to their team are long gone. They're just hired professionals who do a job until their contract expires and then look for the best deal. Apparently, Australian netball fans have different expectations.
So...can we give this a rest?
--Richard 03:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
No, we can't, although I am perfectly willing to accept a compromise. Do you think the "normal hyperbole" that one would expect from a sports writer is appropriate for an encyclopaedia? Are you familiar with WP:NPOV? Badgerpatrol 04:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that it wasn't hyperbole, and perfectly fitted no less than three definitions I presented. Stop being querulous. Rebecca 04:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. To be honest, I think perhaps I must be obtuse, since Richard's point seems to be that POV language is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopaedia (despite WP:NPOV and others) and yours seems to be that the word "defection" is itself NPOV, despite glaring and manifest evidence to the contrary that is quite literally staring you in the face. What a kerfuffle over the perfectly reasonable substitution of the word "defection" with the word "transfer". I shall move forward with the dispute resolution process in the morning. Please respond regarding your comments yesterday about tearing out paragraphs and the like, or strike those comments from the discussion. Badgerpatrol 04:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have presented three perfectly relevant definitions which made clear that the word defection does not carry NPOV connotations, especially in the context it is being used here. You then attempted to use irrelevant definitions to prolong a point which you'd simply lost. I really don't understand why you're so fixated on this word, but if you insist on taking being querulous to new levels, then be my guest. Rebecca 04:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest, Badgerpatrol, that you consider that "defection" has multiple meanings in different contexts and that, while it is generally pejorative in all contexts, the level of criticism varies with the context. I did a search in Wikipedia for "defection" and came up with this Financial Times Deutschland. Try this. Search on "defection" in Google. You'll find defections from political parties, Dell's defection from Intel to AMD, accounting clients defecting from Andersen after the Enron verdict, cell phone customers defecting from Sprint, etc. Have I proved my case?

--Richard 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, I just slogged through all 15 definitions in the link that Badgerpatrol provided. ALL of them have what I would call the "strong" definition of "defection" i.e. being tantamount to betrayal, treachery and apostasy.
However, as the examples from Google will show, it is typical in the news media to use "defection" in what I would call the "loose" sense, that is simply to move from one company or vendor to another. The amount of allegiance or loyalty that is expected in this case is much lower than one might expect for one's country, religion or political party. This is the crux of the issue. Is the "loose" sense of the word "defection" acceptable in Wikipedia? Rebecca and I think so. Badgerpatrol does not. Perhaps he does not accept that there is a "loose" sense of the word. Perhaps he feels that the pejorative judgment of the "strong" sense unacceptably taints the "weak" sense.
Let's discuss this just a bit further before starting dispute resolution. There are far bigger controversies out there for people to get wrapped up in.
--Richard 05:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defection section

We are having a bit of an edit war because I keep wanting to split this section into two parts: the first part about the actual decision to defect and the second part about Kydd's career with the Phonenix after the decision to sign with them.

What it comes down to is that I view the defection as happening at a single point in time: i.e. the announcement that she had decided to sign with the Phoenix. Rebecca seems to see it as covering the entire first season of playing with the Phoenix and even to cover discussion of her failure to return to international selection.

To this, I can only ask: At what point is the defection "over". Does it cover her entire career with the Phoenix until she retires or "defects" to another team? Or is the defection over at the end of her first year with the Phoenix?

Presumably Kydd has a few years of netball left in her career. Is the rest of her career to be placed under the heading "Defection to the Melbourne Phoenix"?

--Richard 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

At the moment, the content still very much covers the defection and its aftermath, which flowed through much of the season. That can be reevaluated next season. Rebecca 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I continue to disagree with the section title but I concede that the first sentence or two of the last paragraph does discuss the aftermath. I'm willing to let it go for now since I expect this section will get reorganized once the next season starts.
--Richard 05:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/y/n/Talk%7ECynna_Kydd_7b54.html"