Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Netball
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Project work
I've just been thinking about a few immediate projects we might be able to start getting going with.
- I notice a few teams don't have complete final player details yet; this would be good to fix up soon
- there's still quite a few national teams without articles; perhaps it'd be good to get a least of all of these together and plow through them all
- does anyone know of any decent sources for player information? It'd be really good if we could get all current (and start thinking about doing past) players, but I'm worried about being able to find good information for those of us without newspaper archive access
Anyway, just some things to start thinking about. Rebecca (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I think we need to figure out who is doing what - so far three of us started building a project banner template! (Mine would have been finished except the kids kept me away from the computer all day). As I said on someone's talk page, I'm not much of an expert on the actual game, so I can focus on the project page and templates for now. (Puts in first claim to develop player infobox). dramatic (talk) 09:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right. I'd like to develop some userboxes and invite banners for the project. I've also made a draft main page for the project at User:Liveste/Netball, for which I've tried to incorporate ideas from different editors. Let me know what you think. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be possible to find space in this for a to-do list? I'd like to start picking off the most notable topics with articles, with a goal towards (in the not-too-distant future) at least having articles on every ANZ championship player, every national team, and every national competition team. Rebecca (talk) 10:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Something like that could go wherever you'd like, but preferably in between the "Scope" and "Selected article" sections when editing the page. There are a lot of small sections that can be moved around to accommodate it, or another section could be added if needed. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- Is there any chance you could make up a new format for the to-do list? The general tempate is next to useless for our project, because we're starting from such a low base: there's barely anything to assess, most of the existing articles could do with some work, and most of the work we still need is in writing articles. It'd be really good if we could have a section for each area in which we need articles: national teams, domestic teams, and biographies being the three most glaring holes. Rebecca (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assessing article importance
We also need to determine what articles are of "top" importance to the WikiProject (remembering that we're supposed to be an international collaborative effort) and what are of "low" importance, as well as everything in between. Here are a few of my suggestions, but they're far from complete. Comments welcome.
| Top: | Netball, indoor netball, IFNA, World Champs, Top national teams |
| High: | Other national teams in the World Champs |
| Mid: | All other national teams |
| Low: | Past domestic netball teams |
Not quite sure where to put elite domestic (or multi-national) competitions and their teams. Same problem for biographies. Should we have an underlying philosophy to determine importance? Again, thoughts welcome. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- I would put the elite competitions in High and their teams in Mid, and players in low (this should generally be pyramid-shaped. There might be criteria for putting the top 20% of players in mid. What would that equate to in years of elite competition or number of internationals? dramatic (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I've compiled a draft importance scale below.
| Top: | Netball, Indoor netball, IFNA, Netball World Championships |
| High: | Top national teams; Elite domestic/multi-national netball competitions |
| Mid: | Other national teams; High-profile biographies; Individual World Championships (e.g., 1963 Championship); Teams and seasons of elite domestic/multinational competitions |
| Low: | Other domestic teams and biographies |
If everyone agrees, I'll add this scheme to the assessment department page within 48 hours. Using this, we can assess netball-related articles fairly consistently, instead of leaving them as unassessed. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That looks sensible. Am I good to start classifying articles by importance? Matt (talk) 04:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lania Barrett-Chasse
We have two articles on her at different spellings - google was no help in determining which spelling is correct. dramatic (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- Player profiles on both the Southern Steel and ANZ Championship websites list her name as Liana Barrett-Chase. A google search of this name gives more substantial output. I'll redirect both pages to this title now. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 05:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] ANZ Championship statistics
In the ANZ Championship, teams that have equal points on the ladder are sorted by "goal percentage". Currently, this statistic isn't released on the Internet until about a week after matches are played. I'm guessing that this statistic would be included in post-match analyses on telecasts, so I'd like to ask if anyone watching match telecasts can also note either the goal percentages for each team or, even better, the number of shots at goal attempted. I'm asking because I'd like to include goal percentages on the {{ANZ Championship Season 2008 Ladder}} template (which could probably do with a rename), but having to wait a week for these statistics would make a mockery of an "updated" table. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think I have pay TV access, but I'll have to check sometime. I think it's worth having an updated table, even if it takes a week to adjust, anyway. Rebecca (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- These statistics are frustrating! On one hand, the ANZ Championship website is now releasing the goal percentage statistics a lot sooner. But on the other, the (cumulative) goal percentages for each team don't all correspond with their positions on the ladder; they also don't exactly match the statistics on post-match telecast analyses.
-
- The ANZ Championship site specifically names the goal percentage statistic as the first piece of information used to sort teams on the ladder with equal points. I'm assuming that they're referring to cumulative goal percentage, which as I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong), equals cumulative "goals scored" divided by cumulative "goals attempted", multiplied by 100. Assuming that this is correct, then the Southern Steel should be fifth on the ladder at the end of Round 2, and not seventh as the website (and other websites) have published. I'm guessing that I've missed something, but I don't know what that could be. Any ideas? – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Notability"
At the bottom of many pages, there are "notable players". Presummably this is more notable that the notability required to end up on Wikipedia in the first place so it is a matter of degree. Do we have/want any loose guidance on a definition? I propose (without too much thinking) these things might equal notability:
- Being in a place winning team more than once
- Breaking a record for anything
- The "other" category; being in a team for ages, getting a lot of press/sponsorship etc.
These criteria maybe exist somewhere else (and more well thought out than my ones). Any thoughts?
Matt (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Presumably, this would correlate to the "high notability" that we used (but did not define) for the "Assessing article importance" discussion.
Maybe I am being too pedantic
Matt (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
- Pedantic? Not at all. Defining "high-profile/notability" would be helpful, particularly when assessing biographies that may be "borderline high-profile". For mine, I think that a high profile requires significant coverage in reliable publications and widespread recognition over many years (say five years, to arbitrarily throw in a number), compared with other players. Significant coverage and recognition is usually the natural result of a player achieving many wins, breaking records or receiving honours. I wonder if we should come up with some examples of high-profile players, to which other players can be compared.
- One other thing: how many articles have "Notable players" at the bottom of the page? The only one of relevance I can think of is Netball. I've always thought of the list on that article as being a bit too subjective, and I've actually been thinking about moving the list to a separate article. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 12:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
