Talk:Netball/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Withdrawing the good article review

As the nominator for the good article review, I have decided to withdraw the request at this time. There are some valid points on the first good article review. They will be addressed. We'll work through the issues on the history. When either myself or another contributor to this article feels the article can pass again, we'll nominate again. Given the issues with the previous two reviewers, I would request that neither racepacket nor bill participate in that review as reviewers. --LauraHale (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it is up to the reviewer to fail the article, and not the nominator. We are close to done, and I am willing to go forward with other interested editors to finish the job. We can finish this if we all maintain a spirit of good will and cooperation. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's extreamly rude racepacket. The nominator is entitled to withdraw at anytime you should not had reinstated it. KnowIG (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

cite hansard

This template is not compatible with {{reflist}}. Comments have been on {{cite hansard}} and {{reflist}}. They are aware of this problem and are attempting to fix it to make both citation templates compliant with each other. That is why the linking between the two references sections doesn't work and there are occasional formatting errors when cite hansard is used. --LauraHale (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball at the Summer Olympics

It feels like that in order to do the Olympic section correctly, the section should probably be expanded upon and then moved to a page called Netball at the Olympics. That appears to be the standard naming convention for articles about sports at the Olympics. Trying to determine where to put it is a bit of a problem because it hasn't been played (but it could be) and the Olympic project has no guidance for how to handle sports that are recognised and could face potential inclusion but have not been played. There is a category for demonstration sports so this article could probably just the creation of a new category just to deal with that.

In any case, I'll spend time today improving the Olympic section with an eye towards creating a new article and then better summarising the content into one or two paragraphs. Doing that should prevent undo bias towards coverage an event that isn't actually played in the Olympics but where its lack of inclusion is very notable. --LauraHale (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Both the new article and the proposed category sound like the best solutions (don't forget the hyphen in "Olympic-recognised"). More work for you to do :P. Once the History section is sorted out, I'm going to revamp the "Description and rules" section. It currently has very little information on defence and penalties in general. Cheers – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you see poorly hyphenated Olympic-recognised situations, please feel free to fix. :) If you could toss on the one tag to say that we're undergoing major revisions on the article, that would be helpful.

I'm hoping we can avoid edit conflicts if we're both working on it. :) Agree a bit on the rules and description section. It could use some expansion. The passing section could probably use a bit of a cleanup and might be an area to cover defence and penalties a bit as I tried to use sources to talk about what type of passes are used by what players. --LauraHale (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Article created. Next task is to improve the lead on that article, cite it, cut and paste it back over to the netball article, add a {{main|Netball at the Olympics}}. --LauraHale (talk) 04:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Is there anything else that needs to be done in the Olympic section? --LauraHale (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've asked the Olympic project for assistance on the daughter article as they do not have a framework for how to handle articles on Olympic recognised sports in their manuals of style for the project. The article will probably have a name change in the future. The important bit is that we have the daughter article for the main article. I think most of the work related to the Olympics issue can now go there, and discussion about the topic outside of the needs of the netball article can move to that talk page. --LauraHale (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lesbians and netball

I have been looking for sources to help improve the scope of the Olympic section. This information was in a chapter cited below and I thought it was interesting. Is this topic worth a section on the article?

Russell, Kate (2007). Aitchison, Cara Carmichael (ed.). Sport & Gender Identities: Masculinities, Femininities and Sexualities. Routledge. pp. 107–121. ISBN 9780415259576. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Text "chapterQueers, Even in Netball?" ignored (help)

The chapter is about this topic in general but a quote from page 110 seems to describe the issue:

When discussing sexuality it is clear that the lesbian stereotype is prominent in sport, but it would be inappropriate to continue this discussion without recognizing that for the netballers their identity was rendered ambiguous as they were often perceived as both being gay and straight. These assumptions were based on two different assumptions: first, that women together are already or will ultimately become lesbians, and second, that netballers were 'up for a good time' with men. In the UK, where only women play netball competitively, it is one of the most stereotypically feminine sporting activities and it is therefore surprising to note that the lesbian label was as prominent in this sport as in many others that women play."

The article doesn't provide stats regarding the total percentage of lesbian competitors but rather looks at the perception of the sport as being played by lesbians and the impact that this assumption has. --LauraHale (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

TBF could be seen as the standard women in sports stereotype/arguement and meaning that the gender marking/stereotype is present within coverage of netball. Could be hard to argue the lesbian stuff although an addition of something about the coverage sufferes from gender stereotypes, e.g. many are lesbian therefore seen as masculine (see 1999 AO coverage of women's ginal) maybe useful and a good way of using the quote. Beyond that I can't really see how you would use it, as it seems to be more useful to use in an accedemic context where Wikipedia obviously isn't and I don't really get what you want to get out of it so to speak. KnowIG (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Sydney to host the 2015 World Netball Championships

Sydney to host the 2015 World Netball Championships: Anyone want to integrate this information into the article if relevant? --LauraHale (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally don't see how it is relavent. Can go into the WC table, but not in the prose, as imo doesn't add to this article and could be said to be too much detail/detracting from the main article. KnowIG (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It is more of a WP:BALL violation. So let's leave it out. Racepacket (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

eight ref tags in a row

Any way of rationing them, or doing it in some other way? (I'm no expert at ref tags.) Tony (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Which section has the too many ref tags? (They could probably all be moved into a footnote and just have one note that covers the reference with a comment that all these refs help establish this point.) --LauraHale (talk) 12:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Alt tag on image in info box

There appears to be an issue with the sport info box template that is not allowing the alt text to display. I've asked for this to be fixed on the talk page for the problem template. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball around the world

One thought for the global section: Create daughter articles for each region that IFNA has: Netball in the Americas, Netball in Asia, Netball in Europe, Netball in Oceania and Netball in Africa. If we structure it that way, then the leads for those sections can be cited and put back in Netball. The added advantage to this is it might encourage the improvement of the netball by country articles and feed down the line for other articles. Plus, we can make it a netball project goal to get say all the region articles to good status at some point in the future. But yeah, as an interim solution, creating daughter articles for each region seems like a good idea to me. Once written and stubbed out, leads can be created and put back into the main article if that sounds okay with other contributors to this article and Wikipedia:WikiProject Netball? --LauraHale (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Netball objectives

Could someone possibly help address the feedback about the objective of netball left on my talk page? I'm not familiar enough with the mechanics of the game to be able to do that adequately myself. --LauraHale (talk) 23:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this may be a semantic issue: the word "goal" refers both to the "objective" and the net representing that objective. From the former perspective "the opposing team's goal" is the net being defended by the team, not the one being defended by the opponents. However, it is common to use the opposite convention, so that, for example, an "own-goal" refers to an accidental concession of a goal to the opponents, rather than achieving the goals of the team. The best we can do, I think, is try to steer clear of the potential ambiguity. Geometry guy 23:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In netball, a team tries to shoot the ball into the "opposing" team's goal – hence the original wording (which pertained to scoring goals rather than attaining them). Think of it this way: the goal attack and goal shooter try to "attack" the other team's goal, while the goal defence and goal keeper try to "defend" their own goal. Conversely, teams don't attack their own goal, nor do they defend another team's goal. This is consistent with what's seen in other sports, in terms of defence and attack. That said, I'm all for less ambiguous wording. Not sure how best to do it for the moment. Any ideas? – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The point I was trying to raise above is that common convention for whose goal is whose is contrary to the etymology of the word "goal": Mrs Muffet's claim is that netball uses the logical convention rather than the one common in other sports, and she has provided evidence for that.

I had a look at a copy of the official IFNA rules. As far I can tell, they manage to avoid saying whose goal is whose, except at one point: the description of a "Toss Up" (18.5.3) reads "The two players shall stand facing each other and their own goal ends with arms straight and hands to sides, but feet in any position." Reading around, I believe that the goal ends that the players are facing are the ones they are attacking, not defending.

If the IFNA rules can almost entirely avoid mentioning whose goal is whose, perhaps Wikipedia can (and should) too. Other ways of distinguishing the goals (which I have seen used elsewhere) include "at the opponent's end", "being attacked", "attacking", "in the goal shooter's circle"...

Geometry guy 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding you. My perspective comes from my personal (non-playing) experience with the game. But if the IFNA rules don't mention "opposing team's goal", then neither should this article. I've proposed alternative wording below. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

in the Shakespear book (1997 version), the objective is described on page 3, paragraph 2. It says: "The object of the game is to score more goals than the opposition. Goals are scored by projecting the ball above then completely through the ring attached to a goalpost. Goals can be scored only by one of the team's two "shooters" standing within the team's goal circle. The goalposts are 3.05 metres (10 feet) high, and the ring has a net attached to it, which makes it easy to see when a goal is scored. Each goal scores one point." I'm not sure if that quote helps but that's what one book source says. The Smith/Humberstone book has no paragraph I could find that listed an objective for the game. --LauraHale (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Just commenting to add that I also checked the Noeleen Dix book. On page 5, it says in the second paragraph: "The basic aim of the game is for each team to move the ball into their scoring zone where either the Goal Shooter or Goal Attack can score goals from within the goal circle. Each goal is worth one point and the team that has the most number of points at the end of the game is the winner." --LauraHale (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Laura. It seems to me that "the team's goal circle" and "their scoring zone" support Mrs Muffet's contention that the "goal" in netball tends to be that of the attacking team. There should be enough material here now to reword the article. Geometry guy 21:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to take a crack at it, that would be great. I'd need a serious sit down with the text to do that and as I'm on a bus while writing this, not going to try right now. --LauraHale (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If that's what the sources are saying (in which case, I apologise for the revert), then from the above information I'd venture the following rewording: "The object of the game is for teams to score goals, by passing a ball into their scoring zone and shooting it into the goal". Or "their goal", whichever you'd prefer (I chose "the goal" to avoid having "their" twice in the same clause). "Goal circle" is more relevant to netball than "scoring zone" is, but the sentence already uses the word "goal" twice (not sure what to do on that count). Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 23:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have restored my edit so that the incorrect information regarding "the opposing team's goal" has been removed until you decide how to reword the text in a more neutral fashion.Mrs muffet (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Because I found another source... I thought I would drop the text on to the talk page to help people trying to fix the wording. The page number for this quote is page 10.

All England Netball Association (2002). Netball. Know the Game (Fourth ed.). A & C Black. ISBN 0713660023. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The aim of the game is to score goals after working the ball towards one's own goal in a manner allowed by the rules. The patterns of play come about by wise exploitation of the rule governing playing areas, so playyers must keep onside, and know what happens if they go offside (Rule 9) or the ball goes out of court (Rule 10). Before such patterns can develop, it is necessary to know how to start the game (Rules 11 and 12) and then what the rule governs goal score (Rule 15), in addition to what has already been established by Rules 4 and 8.

End quote. Not sure if this helps with the debate as to what goal is the one being scored on but if the goal that you score on is your own, this paragraph should provide an adequate citation for that. --LauraHale (talk) 00:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary Style

This article contains a lot of good information, in fact probably too much good information. It would be improved considerably by using more WP:summary style. I propose splitting out the Description and rules and Globally sections for a start. AIRcorn (talk) 07:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

We're trying to split out globally. The information has been put into daughter articles by region, with the intent of improving the daughter articles so that we have decent leads for them. Once that is done, take the leads for all five daughter articles, fully cite them and integrate them back into the main article. Any help with that would be massively appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Would you consider going a generation further and making the leads of the five daughter articles the body of another article "Netball around the world" (or something similar) and use that as the daughter of this article. It is very long. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the importance of the history of the game and its impact around the world, I think the section needs to be there in order to be comprehensive. The game had differing social impacts in places. Thus, I really feel around the world is important even if it comes down to say two or three paragraphs per region as it helps demonstrate the popularity of the game, who the major international competitors are, a history of the game nationally, how netball is addressed in schools. If it was organised substantially differently, I think you'd have to put that information in under other subheadings in a way where the organisation and inclusion of information has less flow and connection. (Netball is played around the world in schools. It is included in various curriculums. It just is hard to summarize that effectively as we're not talking one organised system but many different systems as every country and often states have their own curriculum standards and level of access to resources.) --LauraHale (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Even two paragraphs on each continental region is going to extend to 10 paragraphs. The section is important and should remain, but if you compare it too association football (which has many more members) it only has two to three paragraphs (last paragraph of international competitions and all of domestic competitions) devoted to Association football around the world. I should note that while the football article is featured it was promoted in 2007, and standards have increased since then. Baseball, the only other featured sport, has about five paragraphs under history. Maybe some of the information could be moved into the history section with the global section concentrating mainly on the current state in these countries? AIRcorn (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with description and rules. That bit plays a huge role in comparative articles about a sport. For me personally, I'd want to know more how you'd shortern them to make it clear what the game is about. --LauraHale (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I would remove most of the sub headers, the table of positions and styles of passing and try and make the rest more concise. By remove I mean just in this article, they will still exist in the daughter article. Anyone wanting more details can easily access it there. I can give it a go if you want, it can always be reverted back if it doesn't work AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The association football and other better articles in sport give a lot of space to the rules, positions, etc. I don't necessarily oppose this (and if some one wants to try it, that's cool) but I'm not sure the rationale. What did the comments on the FAC say about this? That's the long term goal for the article and I'd like to address their comments for how to deal with that section. --LauraHale (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to add a view, I think a separate article on the rules of netball would be be very helpful. That would make it easier to precis content here. Rules about footwork, for example, are very important, but quite intricate. Geometry guy 21:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Any suggestions for the name of the article? I'm not familiar with most of the sporting areas for Wikipedia to know how they split that content off. (And I might have a slight sense of panic that removing this content would make it less comprehensive and thus harder to pass an FAC when we go for it again. It isn't you or my attempts to own the article but thinking with that goal in mind and not wanting to fail at that goal a second time.) --LauraHale (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

As a reassuring comment, note the advantage of summary style is that you can easily bring in or remove material from the article to achieve comprehensive coverage without unnecessary length. In other words, you will be able to respond proactively to reviewers at FAC. Geometry guy 22:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking at other articles they seem to be titled "_____ Gameplay" or "laws [or rules] of _____" with some well developed ones having both. We could possibly use both, with gameplay giving a simple description of how it is played and laws providing more detail. I think a gameplay section before the history would be good to provide a general overview of the game before delving too deep into its history (a la association football). By the way, I noticed this article at FAC and think we need more broad and "encyclopadically important" articles featured and would like to help. AIRcorn (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Got bold and shortened it down to three largish paragraphs. Hopefully it covers enough of the main points. Feel free to tinker with it. AIRcorn (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

2009–2010 Netball Superleague Season

Could someone take a look at the 2009–2010 Netball Superleague Season article please. It seems to have two similarly named leagues jumbled together in the same article. I had only intended to Wikilink the page to the Celtic Dragons, but noticed something seemed wrong. As my knowledge of netball wouldn't even need a postage stamp to set out in full, I thought I'd leave it to the experts. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed the information about the ANZ Championship. --LauraHale (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response, LauraHale. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-Netball photo

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Flickr_a_reliable_source_as_to_photo_contents

I tried to remove File:The Girls Netball Team.jpg, as it doesn't seem to illustrate anything about the topic. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It does. It illustrates who plays netball in Malawi. The picture specifically appears in a section about netball being played in a section about netball in a specific country. It does not appear in rules. It does not appear elsewhere. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show people playing. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

That isn't relevant to what it does illustrate: Who plays netball in Malawi. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show athletes in uniform. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant. The girls in the picture are a netball team. They are from Malawi. The section they appear in is about netball in the country of Malawi. The picture illustrates who plays by having pictures of the people who play. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The clothes they're wearing aren't even practical for playing the sport informally. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant. The picture isn't intended to illustrate netball being played in Malawi but rather, WHO plays netball in Malawi. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show a net, nor a ball. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, not relevant. The picture is there to illustrate who plays, not the game being played. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show a notable team. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, not relevant. This isn't about the Malawi national team. This section is about the culture of netball in the whole of Malawi. This picture helps illustrate that by showing who plays this game. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't appear to be a netball related event (for example, athletes in plain clothes at an award ceremony might be ok). --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure the relevance here. This appears to be a team photo taken by some one in Malawi. It is informal. It illustrates the people who play the game in Malawi. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll assume the 4 youngest children aren't players yet.--Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Relevance? The picture is a netball team in Malawi. The person who took the picture does not appear to be a troll uploading random pictures of people and misidentifying them. The picture appears to be tagged geographically from Malawi. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we assume all the adults&teens are players? --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does this matter? The point of the picture is to illustrate who plays netball in Malawi. It is not intended to illustrate a game of netball being played in Malawi. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the person taking the picture is not credible in terms of identifying the contents of the picture he published? --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How do we know who is an athlete, and who is not, but is joining in the photo with family/friends. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you making a bad faith assumption about the uploader? If this is a huge problem, the caption can be changed to "People in [location of the picture taken] who play netball." --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There are about 19 people old enough to be players. --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So what? It could very well be a picture of netball club that encompasses several age groups, where the word club is being used interchangably with team. Do you have any evidence to suggest this is not the case? I know that is often how netball is described in Australia and New Zealand. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A team is made up of only 7 players, according to the article. Yet, the caption tells us this is a team (singular). --Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would bet you I could find pictures of other team sports on Commons where there are team pictures with more players in the picture than take the field. Netball allows for substitution and there is nothing to indicate that netball team and club are not being used interchangable by the author. Beyond that, the caption can easily be changed to say "People who play netball in [location], Malawi" if that would solve your problem. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't see the relevance. I would love to have a picture of Malawi netball players, but this just doesn't cut it.--Rob (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The picture IS of Malawi netball players. You've offered no evidence to suggest that the person who took the picture is not credible in terms of being allowed to describe his own pictures. You've offered no explanation for how this picture does not provide an idea as to WHO players netball in Malawai. --LauraHale (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Rob has a valid point. This picture's caption says it's A Malawian netball team and I bet this is not a Malawi's national team at least, --Bill william compton^Talk 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The picture doesn't say that it is the Malawi national netball team. The section is not about the Malawi national netball team. If the section was about the Malawi national netball team, then the picture would be inappropiate. The picture is about netball in Malawi. --LauraHale (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

as I watched them playing during 2010 Commonwealth Games. --Bill william compton^Talk 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Please notice this image of some bunch of boys posing for snap, on Flickr it says that it's a Boys Football Team, so can I use it on Soccer's article?--Bill william compton^Talk 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill, if you were using the picture about the culture of Soccer in Malawi to illustrate who plays the game on the local level in Malawi, I'd say it would be appropiate. As there are no comparable sections, I wouldn't but if I was writing an article titled Soccer in Malawi and there were few images to illustrate this, I would certainly argue you should be able to use it. --LauraHale (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

These both pictures have been uploaded by a same person on Flickr and I highly doubt the authenticity of his descriptions of pictures. For example one of his picture's title says Some of the 250+ Orphans and Vulnerable Children in Kalimbira, on the other hand description of file says This photo was taken in Lilongwe, Malawi, so tell me how we'll judge whether this photo was taken in Lilongwe or in Kalimbira..--Bill william compton^Talk 21:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Laura if you answered all my queries then why didn't you answer this one. You said above Do you have any evidence to suggest that the person taking the picture is not credible in terms of identifying the contents of the picture he published? and You've offered no evidence to suggest that the person who took the picture is not credible in terms of being allowed to describe his own pictures. You've offered no explanation for how this picture does not provide an idea as to WHO players netball in Malawai , don't you think this is some sort of evidence?, may be you're not aware of but on Flickr there are so many doubtful images which depict something else but their captions tell completely different stories [I'm also on Flickr and routinely face such things], so I don't think we should have blind faith on Flickr's uploaders and what is this term "WHO players netball in Malawai"? --Bill william compton^Talk 22:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I might be able to shed some light on this. I don't think Kalimbira is a geographical location. It appears to refer to one Dr Alexander Kalimbira, a senior lecturer in human nutrition at the University of Malawi. Another photo from the same uploader is titled "Some of the 200+ Children in the Kalimbira Feeding Program". "Kalimbira" in this case is likely a shorthand name for the Feeding Program – perhaps a research/outreach centre. In any case, it doesn't really provide evidence of unreliability on the part of the uploader. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can present some credible evidence to suggest that the authenticity of the photographers description is suspect, I'd suggest you leave it. If the guy is photographing in Malawi, as long as he's provided a geographical location to where the images were shot, there's not really a whole great deal you can do. These are informal photos taken of players of a sport at a local level, they don't have to be in uniforms to confirm that they are indeed a team. I suggest if you have queries with the photographer's work, you contact the photographer through flickr, rather than pick the uploader apart for taking the photographers descriptions in good faith. Fish ^Barking? 22:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Bill, that aspect is already being discussed at RSN, instigated by user:racepacket, whom Laura is trying to avoid interaction with due to ongoing dispute resolution. The authenticity aspect of this thread should be discussed on the noticeboard rather than having two fragmented discussions about the same thing. The utility of this image on this article is a separate issue, and one which is appropriate to discuss here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

This has the potential to boil over, so I will keep this short. While I am happy to assume good faith that the photo is of a Malawian netball team, I don't think it is a good picture to carry into a FAC or even have in an overview article. As has been pointed out at the RSN discussion "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate" and this one doesn't. This is probably all moot as the section is being split into daughter articles and the picture might fit into the Netball in Africa article better. AIRcorn (talk) 00:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

LauraHale, I made gave a group of points together, for a reason. You refactored my comments to isolate each one to shoot it down. Now, by itself, each of my points can be defeated, if there are other redeeming values of the photo. Any *one* flaw can be outweighted by other factors. But, if you look at them in total, you see the photo has absolutely no value whatsoever. We have multiple images that illustrate Netball in different countries far better than this one. What is so special about this photo. What does it illustrate. This is a kind of topic that is *easy* to get photos of. There should be a vast supply. We can be picky. But, this photo is so useless, I wouldn't use it, even if there were no other photos whatsoever. This really isn't even worth considering. --Rob (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of this image in general. We can accept in good faith the photographer's description that the women depicted are a netball team (same for being Malawian), per WP:IMAGE. But they don't really look like a netball team (another requirement of WP:IMAGE) any more than any other group of Malawian women, not all of whom play netball. That said, I don't really mind either way whether or not the photo remains. Perhaps we can make it more relevant by expanding the caption, something like "A group of Malawian netball players. Netball is the most popular sport in Malawi for women". Sources shouldn't be hard to find for this, and the information can be added to the article body if it isn't already there. My ultimate preference is for a different image, such as the Flickr photo mentioned below, to replace the current one. As for a current course of action ... I'd say retain the current image on this article so long as the Malawi subsection exists here, or until we get a better one. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules of netball

I've asked User:Aircorn and User:Liveste for help fixing the rules of netball article and the section in this article. One of the general views of how to get FAC status is to improve the daughter articles, take the leads for those, cite them and put them in the parent article. Get the daughter articles to GA or FA and it should help with the main article. Anyone else who could help with the process of fixing up rules of netball with the goal of submitting it for GAN, that help would be much appreciated. :D --LauraHale (talk) 09:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Rules of netball and variants

I'm looking at the revision by Graham. Should the rules section cover that sort of thing? And should the variants be included in there? The source doesn't say what the IP added in. (And if you look at variants for children, it has different timing, saying 4 quarters of 6 minutes.) But assuming a good faith edit on the part of the IP, is it worth considering putting in the timing related issues and other variant issues on the Rules of netball article? --LauraHale (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably, in their own section. Graham87 09:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Within the Netball article, rule and game variants are already well covered. Whether or not they should be covered in Rules of netball could be tricky, depending on the scope of the daughter article. The title "Rules of netball" seems to limit the scope to the IFNA's official rules IMO. If a broader scope is meant, perhaps a title like "Netball gameplay" (similar to Rugby union gameplay) would be clearer, in which case a separate section on variants is certainly warranted. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at that article about rugby and boggling. I'm not sure how to do that for netball. The rules of netball article gets into gameplay a bit as the article talks about passing styles. We could do a rename to Rules and gameplay for netball or Netball rules and gameplay? Is there a source that actually supports the times that the person puts in there by IFNA or a national netball federation? I'd be okay with the sentence being where it was if it just could be sourced. Most of the timing I've seen like that involved youth variants created by national associations that had a slew of other rules. --LauraHale (talk) 01:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Malawi image

This particular image isn't worth edit warring over. For the moment, given the issues surrounding it, it should probably stay. It likely won't stay in the long term. For context before any more removing of the image happens:

The original call for the removal of the image was requested on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ by a user who had been requested to disengage from netball articles at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Racepacket 2‎.
The original call for the removal of the image was requested for removal based on the reliable sourcing of the image description where the photographer's credibility to type a description of the image was questioned. (And the resolution of the discussion was that it wasn't an issue. If it was, it would require further investigation for Wikipedia:V of all images.)
This image was never addressed in the Good Article review by three seperate reviewers and it wasn't brought up when the image was nominated for FAC. If it was seriously this much of a problem, it would likely have been brought up then.
The image was not intended to illustrate netball, but rather women who play netball in Malawi. (As these are non-white women who don't wear traditional western attire, it effectively illustrates that point.)
Long term, the image is likely to do as there is an effort to improve Netball in Africa, where the image fits better, to then import the lede into the article. The presence of the image will likely be gone in a month or two anyway. --LauraHale (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant to usefulness of image. I don't care about prior user conflicts.
Images don't have to have the same high sourcing we require of text normally. We trust an image is what it appears to be. This image appears to be totally unrelated to netball.
It's being brought up now. This isn't a court of law, with filing deadlines. Even Featured Articles (which this is not) can be altered later.
So, are you arguing netball players look different than non-netball players in the same area? Can you spot netball players on the street? How is this picture different than any random picture of people in the same place?
So, why wait? --Rob (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You've done 4RR's now. You're looking at a block in the near future. The image sourcing was resolved on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard‎ with the sourcing of the image being a non-issue. If you disagree, please continue the discussion. I can't participate over there but you can. The image description has no sourcing problems based on the resolution over there. And if you want to argue that, you'll probably need a cite wide RfC. And I'm arguing that people who read the article may not know what women in Malawi who play netball look like. I'm not arguing they look distinct but rather trying to illustrate who plays. --LauraHale (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Offhand, this image is making a fairly minor contribution to this article either way. I agree with LH that there's no prerequisite for these women to look like what we would expect of athletes in competition--and therein lies some of the images' interest. But LH, you can't argue it wouldn't be better to have a picture of these women actually playing netball, even moreso if they were wearing that same attire on the court/field. So I think the image should be recognized as sub-optimal either way, and you should look for a more descriptive image of Malawi(an?) women actually engaged in the sport. Meanwhile, I don't see a clear consensus for or against inclusion, but it strikes me that with the basic verification requirements met, those looking to take the image out should question whether a) it is doing any harm, and b) whether even as sub-optimal it's not adding something to the article. Last, if this image is going to be a proxy for some broader policy debate about image verification policy, it should be made clear and brought promptly as an RfC. On the other hand, if it's just a run of the mill discussion about images, illustrations, and relevance, time debating the matter is probably better spent elsewhere. Ocaasi ^c 02:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Flickr has 766 copyright-compatible images of Netball. Further discussion should probably occur after they have been checked for various alternatives. Ocaasi ^c 02:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Image problem solution: Working to improve the Netball in Africa

Let's start over: The regular contributors to this article have been working very hard to help get Netball to featured article status. The image in question will eventually be removed as part of that process. This is because the feedback on the FAC for the article indicates that we need to better summarize this netball by region sections. As we all are here to improve the content of Wikipedia, let's start collaborating together: Let's work together to improve Netball in Africa so that we can get a solid lede written for the article that can be pasted over in the section about Africa in Netball. Once this is done, the whole issue will be moot. If all the people participating in the discussion could collaborate together to improve the article, if we're all working towards the same goal of improving the wiki, we can do this and we can put the stupidity of this image discussion behind us. Can we do that? Will those opposed to the image work on Netball in Africa so that we can get a good lede that can be pasted over to the section? --LauraHale (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Women's netball outfits in Malawi

For those making the arguement that the women in the picture are not wearing netball outfits, this image here shoes that those outfits they are wearing are likely to be the outfits they play netball in. I'd be happy to actually see some that image in the article. Would some one be willing to contact the author to request they change the licenses so the image referenced could be used Netball and/or Netball in Africa? --LauraHale (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Contacted. For what it's worth, the outfits look different to me. Ocaasi ^c 03:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't look what is traditionally conceptualised as Western sporting apparel, which the thread over on ANI and earlier on this talk page indicate. But that would be a nice compromise image. (There are a lot of interesting sources that aren't netball specific out there that explore the issues of women's sport in Africa and why it isn't more popular. The apparel issue and the reinforcement of traditional gender roles to exclude women are a big one. Another one involves denying women opportunities because of a desire to preserve traditional non-Western cultures. Hard to work that into the article as the sources tend to talk about sport in a broader sense or focus on French dominated parts of Africa, where netball is less popular.) --LauraHale (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The clothes actually look like school uniforms to me, particularly since they pretty much all look the same and the players wearing them don't have bibs. Kids playing netball in school uniforms is hardly rare, almost anywhere in the Commonwealth. I agree that a different photo would solve this whole mess. I actually really like this photo. If the first one doesn't pan out, let's give this one a try. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

LH, I meant that the picture in which they are playing at school looks different from the one in which they are just posing. It's not clear which is the official uniform (if any) and which is just a school uniform or regular everyday attire. The social critique of african sport and gender is useful but if it doesn't fit here it probably just belongs in Sport in Africa or Gender and sport or Women in Africa. This article shouldn't be focused on themes which are more related to the entire society than just netball. That might still leave room for brief mention, or some See Also links though.

That said, I'm a bit perplexed by the image Liveste has linked above. That photograph of girls in Malawi looks very much non-traditional, and suggests the narrative about girls in Malawi not able to wear normal sport attire is either more complex or misunderstood. Two photographs don't make a study, but it appears just as likely that girls have uniforms in school at least until a certain age and then can wear what they want when they play competitively.

I don't think the non-standard uniforms in these photos speaks to the country (or even continent) as a whole. In any netball-playing country, many informal, local games (at any age level) are played in plain clothes and without bibs, such as in this UK photo (I'm too lazy to look for more). I don't think that these photos are as much a social critique on African sport as they are a mere illustration that netball is a popular sport for women in Malawi. FWIW, I linked the second image simply because I think it looks nice :D . – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Liveste here. One of the challenges of writing this article compared to say, basketball or association football is that we are writing about a sport that largely popular outside of the United States, is largely played by women and is largely not a spectator sport. Most of the regular contributors such as Liveste, myself, Graham and to a degree Hawkeye7 are living in areas where the sport is popular. Half those people mentioned are women. Most of the people coming in to argue about the picture appear to be largely unaware of netball, its history, are from the United States or other areas where netball is not popular and are male. While it makes sense to suggest that the picture wouldn't make sense on the association football article, it does not make sense in the specific context of netball. The image needs to be put against that context. It makes sense in this article to discuss reasons for lack of female involvement in sport in this article because this sport is fundamentally aligned with that history. Association football has lots of important historical elements to it but the women's sport issue and the specific development of the game along side traditional gender roles isn't one of those. Asking for netball to separate that aspect in images and text just doesn't work. If we were complaining about images and lack of relevance to netball or not representing "netball", a better arguement could be made for the over inclusion of images featuring men considering the tiny percentage that men compose participation wise. Those arguing against the image's inconclusion appear content with less relevant images that don't reflect netball to be included despite their clear lack of representation of the game. --LauraHale (talk) 00:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Liveste, I contacted that photographer as well. Ocaasi ^c 14:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks mate. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Should image of Netball players not playing be used

Should we use the image of a group females purported to be players of Netball, even though there is no indication in the picture they are in fact Netball players. I would like to discuss this for both Netball (image was in, now protected due to dispute) and Netball in Africa (image is still in). There has already been discussion on both talk pages. This is potentially relevant to any sports article. Rob (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Before inviting a dramafest, brief background from a mostly uninvolved editor. The image is of girls in Malawi wearing their normal school attire. They have been identified on Flickr by a seemingly reputable photographer as a girls' netball team. On its face, the image has nothing to do with netball. There are no traditional uniforms, no sports equipment, no netball court, and no sport-related activity. The claim has thus been made that the image is a) non-specific, in that it does not illustrate the topic; and b) that the connection to netball is therefore not verified.

Discussion at RS/N seem to have tabled (postponed) the issue of image verification, since policy currently does not require that images meet the same guidelines as text sources, instead relying on common sense discretion of uploaders and visual cues in the image itself.

A further rebuttal to objections about the image was on gender and culture normative grounds, namely that girls in Malawi don't look like other girls when they play netball and that this is reflective of a broader sociological critique of sport in Africa, that girls are socialized not to wear modern or perhaps masculine attire. In my opinion, the social critique issue is not irrelevant to the article, but it is largely irrelevant to this image, and too much a bit of original synthesis, as I'll explain below.

Although we have the Flickr uploader's assertion that this is a picture of a female Netball squad, we don't have any verifiable assertion that this image features women so attired because of a social stigma or norm relating to women and athletic dress. Therefore, the decision to use or not use this image should be based on the limited issue of whether it helpfully illustrates the topic in the section in which it is placed, and the article overall. I think it's fair to say that it pictures girls in Africa who play Netball; we don't have reason to doubt that and policy doesn't put the burden of verification on images to prove it. But it's abundantly clear that this image, verifiable or not, is sub-optimal, and an ideal image would have the girls clad in whatever they wear while they are actually playing Netball or at least near a court. Two Flickr photographers who have such images have been contacted, although their images are not under compatible copyrights at the moment.

The two images picture: 1) girls in similar non-atheltic attire while playing Netball and 2) an image of girls in athletic attire also playing netball. Either of those images is preferable to the current image, and in sum they do not establish the point that girls in Malawi play netball in traditional clothes because of some cultural norm or stigma. We simply don't have enough data or direct commentary from RS to make that assertion, therefore it is irrelevant to this discussion about the image.

Thus, this discussion is extremely narrow. The only question is: should we use this image in the meantime? In other words, is it sufficiently illustrative of the subject to be included until a better image can be found? I think so, though that's no endorsement of a broader principle, or the images' long term presence, or some broader cultural point which the image has been asserted to reflect.

tl:dr. This is not about verification, which is a policy change that must be addressed at WP:IMAGE or a related policy page; policy simply does not require verification for images, at present. This is also not about a cultural critique; it's about a sub-optimal image. IMO, the image is good enough for the meantime, definitely for GA status though not FA status. More sources need to be brought to bear on the social critique, which this image is not sufficient to establish, and should not be used to justify the image's sub-optimality. Ocaasi ^c 22:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Ocaasi for a great comment. I like this image because it is effective. It is forces the average reader to think why the image looks wrong, and the answer is that it is at odds with what their world view/preconceived ideas of how a team, even a local junior team, should present themselves. However I appreciate that the image will need to be replaced before FA, and there are ongoing efforts to do so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The theories advanced above worry me. WP:IMAGE is a guideline, WP:V is policy. It's not self-evident that the image removed depicts a netball team. So including it without any caption is a bewildering illustration. Including it with a caption requires a citation for the non-obvious fact stated in the caption. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I don't mean just in this RfC but also in the sections above: Talk:Netball#Malawi_image and Talk:Netball#Non-Netball photo. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:IMAGE is a guideline but Image use policy (IUP) is a policy. There is no mention of verification in IUP (aside from verifying copyright status); all that is mentioned is in a brief section on content: "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central). For more information on images please check out WP:Images which talks about uploading, using, choice & placement." So I'd reaffirm my point that clarification about WP:V and WP:IUP should happen at either policy page, as part of a widely publicized RfC, not here with one relatively unimportant image acting as a proxy for the entire debate.

The relevant IUP guideline is Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence_and_encyclopedic_nature and it also uses the metric of well-illustrates not verifiable. There is clearly no standard of verification for images; whether there should be is a matter for a broader discussion, and probably not here where it is simply clouded with issues about the sub-optimality of the image and a plausible but insufficiently established connection between a social critique and the attire on display in the image in question.

John, I think your comment about cognitive dissonance is interesting, but we should be wary of staging performance art through our choices of content. If the image is likely to evoke a response of surprise and confusion, the caption should try and allay that. Perhaps: A team of Malawian netball players posing for a team picture. They are wearing regular school attire, which is sometimes worn by girls/women during sports as well. That would be my approach, whether or not we added a sourced commentary that "... this is because women in Africa are socialized to..." Ocaasi ^c 00:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You wikilawyering around WP:V by arguing that some other policy says nothing is rather unconvincing. Also your claims of some systemic failure or contradiction between policies that needs to be resolved by some grand RfC, when no such problem exists, is a giant red herring given the simple question at hand here, which can be well resolved with the current polices. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not characterize my interpretation of policy as wikilawyering. That is not in good faith, and not sufficient to address my interpretation. Although V is one of the core policies, WP:IUP is also a policy, and the connection to V is explained in WP:IMAGE. That said, the word 'verification' is not in IUP (aside from copyright verification) and the word 'image' is not in V. So, I'm not opposed to exploring the issue of images re: verification, but this is not the forum nor the case to do so. If you want to bring an RfC at WP:V or WP:IUP, go ahead. Otherwise, the image simply is not good enough of an illustration, rather than insufficiently verified, as the latter is not relevant grounds for disqualification. Ocaasi ^c 01:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One additional thought here. The image is verified, in the sense that the caption accurately reflects the description of the image given by the uploader and the Flickr account photographer. We can verify that the image came from the site, and that the description came from the site. That is all that IUP requires regarding verification. If you want to think about it in the vein of SPS, self-published sources are considered reliable for their own claims, and in this case the Flickr photographer is considered reliable for describing the images s/he takes. But you're arguing that we should apply RS standards; obviously that cannot be done to every image on Wikipedia, so it seems you would mean that verification is/should be required for images where the content does not obviously illustrate what the description suggests, or where the description is challenged. Even that, however, opens thousands of images to challenges that could never be verified by RS standards (secondary, independent, reputable source, etc.). Fortunately, RS doesn't apply to images and never has. If you want to take on the massive endeavor of changing that, it needs a whole lot of attention and consideration. V is a great policy where it applies; that it does not apply here does not mean it is being trod over. Ocaasi ^c 08:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

While we should not require citations to verify an image, it's absurd that the lack of citation is actually being used to favor the image. Requiring all images meet the letter of WP:V would result in deletion of thousands of wonderful pictures, and nobody wants that. We should trust an image is what it appears to be. No more and no less. We should trust (by default) any falsifiable claim about the image (a standard far less than WP:V). I trust this is an image of Malawi women. I trust the older-than-baby females are netball players. So, I'm being very lenient. However, for the umpteenth time, there's nothing in the image that's relevant to Netball. Explain how it is more relevant to Netball than it is to every other human activity that we can assume these females engage in (living, breathing, eating, talking, thinking, running, walking, sleeping, laughing, crying, etc....). Shall we use it every article about common human activities? Now, I do concede sometimes, a person can illustrate an activity, even if they're not engaged in the activity. For instance, a picture of a famous athlete could be used if their iconic to the sport (e.g. the pic of Jacki Robinson would be ok in Baseball even if he was out of uniform, if that was the only image available). With a famous person, it's often not necessary to show their activity, because they're so widely recognized for it. But, there's nothing special about these females. Generally, when people are non-notable, we should only use their image if it has a visible connection to the topic, because nobody, but family/friends, would know who they are and what they do. Also, we *already* have multiple images of Netball players, playing Netball, including in Africa. We don't have images for every country on Earth, nor should we. Hence, there's no need to use this in the "interim". --Rob (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested that 'lack of citation' would be used to favor the image; rather, some suggested that lack of an obvious connection to the subject favors the image because it suggests the subject is misunderstood by those with conventional/modern/western/masculine norms about gender and sports. The image is marginally relevant to netball, in that those girls play it and are on a team together. That wouldn't be true of every group of girls you could photograph in Malawi. That's also a very low bar for illustration of the subject, and everything else you said makes sense. Ocaasi ^c 08:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)