Talk:Roller derby/Archive 3

OSDA Citation needed
The statement, "As of late 2009, there are six member leagues, however, dozens of leagues use the OSDA ruleset without official affiliation" seems in incorrect if you look at http://www.derbyroster.com/osda.html - currently the only site I'm aware of that attempts to track roller derby leagues. Otherwise, a citation is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.250.183.41 (talk) 06:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Whip It and the old Pop Culture section
There'll probably be a flurry of edits as publicity for Whip It ramps up. The #1 edit will probably be people wanting to add a mention of the film to the article, as just happened today.

The roller derby article used to have a "Roller derby in popular culture" section. However, such sections are controversial and are sometimes deleted because they become dumping grounds for trivia of questionable notability. After an editor insisted on deleting the section, I moved it to an entirely separate wiki to avoid future conflict and to keep the article relatively short and scholarly.

Unfortunately, even though the pop culture section's new home at the Roller Derby Wiki is mentioned in the External Links section, newcomers don't seem to notice it. Also, it may be that the tide is turning back away from deleting trivia on sight and we could bring it back, perhaps in a separate article. Some further reading:
 * WP:TRIVIA - official Wikipedia guideline discouraging trivia lists
 * WikiProject Popular Culture - a project coordinating the preservation of pop culture lists in Wikipedia
 * WP:POPCULTURE / WP:HTRIVIA - essays encouraging and providing guidance for creating pop culture lists

For now, though, the main roller derby article on Wikipedia is not the place for mentions of Whip It or the book it's based on, Derby Girl, as well as The Fireball, Kansas City Bomber, Unholy Rollers: The Leader of the Pack, Rollerball, and any mentions/uses of roller derby in music or fictional TV shows. —mjb (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia as a general rule does not (or should not -- lots of people never bother to read our rules) link to outside wikis, so I removed that, along with others that do not belong here. Wikipedia is also not a a web directory. Links should go to the most important *information* sites. A short section on the most notable aspects of roller derby in popular culture is a good idea for this article. Emphasis on short and notable, not just whatever trivia someone thinks up. DreamGuy (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting here. I've taken the issue to External links/Noticeboard because I think that in this instance, you're doing the article and its regular curators a disservice by essentially encouraging the reintroduction of pop culture references by people who would otherwise have been redirected to the wiki. Further, if I'm in the wrong, it would underscore an apparent incongruity in the way WP:EL handles links to web directories and wikis. The two responses my inquiry has garnered thus far haven't been in your favor. I will await further comment before resuming the challenge, however, lest you trot out WP:3RR or some other variation of "RTFM" on me.
 * As for your proposal, a short section on the most notable aspects of roller derby in popular culture…emphasis on short and notable, of course that's a good idea. We already tried it, and it didn't work. It just generated more work for us, because we were trying to enforce arbitrary standards of notability — e.g., why accept Jim Croce's "Roller Derby Queen" but reject some punk band's roller derby-themed song if it met the general notability requirement (local press coverage)? Anything short of a comprehensive list, or a pointer to one, just increases the maintenance burden and combative atmosphere as people focus on "improving" that relatively unimportant section of the article. In the year-and-a-half that the link to the external wiki has been up, relatively few pop culture additions have come in and had to be pruned, whereas before that it was far more frequent; give people an inch and… I'm sure you get the picture. Dealing with that just takes too much time, and there aren't enough of us here who are competent enough with Wikipedia and serious enough about this article's topic to devote time to it. Well, there are, but it takes away our attention from dealing with the many other ways that we need to be improving the roller derby content on Wikipedia. —mjb (talk) 06:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As most people will be introduced to the sport through Whip It and the other fictional films and books surrounding this relatively unknown and new sport, I find it inexcusable that there is not even a mention of them in the article. Attendance at league games are growing because of these influences. One way for this sport to enter the mainstream is to gain the popularity to attract big sponsors. A great deal of this popularity will be from interested individual who watch or read the movies and films and come to Wikipedia to find more information about the movie, book and sport. By not mentioning these significant contributors to the sport's popularity hurts both the completeness of the article and the sport. Hmm... (talk) 23:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This article's purpose is to educate & introduce the sport & its history to the reader, not to exhaustively document every reference to roller derby in pop culture. A dedicated wiki for roller derby is the more appropriate place for that sort of thing, like the one at http://rollerderby.wikia.com/ (sorely in need of some t.l.c.), which is where I moved our roller-derby-in-pop-culture list to after it proved too contentious to remain here. It's also inappropriate to add Whip It or any other fictional or musical work to the lists of nonfiction documentaries & books, as it's clearly not nonfiction, and it has very little academic value.
 * That said, if you find a reliable source (not blog) which doesn't just speculate but convincingly attributes significant growth of some kind to the film Whip It, then a mention can (and should) go in the prose, not the nonfiction list. —mjb (talk) 01:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/roller_derby_enjoys_a_rowdy_renaissance/15919 "Last year’s film, “Whip It,” starring Ellen Page and Drew Barrymore, helped boost roller derby’s swelling ranks."


 * http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2010/02/11/a_e/arts/doc4b740cc47a5ab463619691.txt "...But I think it[Whip It] helped us recruit more fans than skaters. Our fanbase has certainly grown a lot already.”


 * http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/04/roller-derby-britain-women "But Drew Barrymore's new film, also called Whip It, could change that. "We're looking for a bigger hall so we can take more people on," Jackson says."


 * http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/5823386/article-Fairbanks-Rollergirls-are-steadily-gaining-fans?instance=home_news_window_left_top_4 "When Michelle Maynor started the Fairbanks Rollergirls in 2008, she didn’t know what to expect. But then the film “Whip It,” a Drew Barrymore flick about a roller derby league in Texas, came out the next year.


 * “It propelled roller derby into a whole new level of awareness as far as the public,” Maynor, 34, said. “Everybody wants to come check it out. They get addicted to it.”"


 * Hmm... (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Just as a data point, this recent WFTDA survey doesn't as much as mention Whip It. http://wftda.com/news/fan-demographic-survey kencf0618 (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those links! They don't offer any solid evidence for specific claims of attendance, but they do support the notion that at least according to anecdotal reports, at least in some locales, Whip It elevated general awareness and interest in modern roller derby. There ought to be a way we can work that kind of claim, along with those citations, into History of roller derby, which is the main place where the Rollergirls show is mentioned. —mjb (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Women's sport wikiproject
I have proposed that we create a WikiProject devoted to Women's sport: WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Team sites not reliable
I've noticed there an awful lot of team sites that are being used as sources here. While it is easy and tempting to use them, they are not reliable sources for any information outside of their own team information (statistics, team members, schedule, etc.). We really need to find reliable sources to verify the information. ICY TIGER'S BLOOD 06:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. In the meantime, please feel free to place the better source template after each primary-source citation. —mjb (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Good Article/Featured Article?
To the editors of this article: GREAT WORK! Have you thought to submit for Good Article or Featured Article status? IMO your excellent work deserves greater awareness. The section on Rules is the most lucid description I have seen of the game. --Nemonoman (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I have contributed extensively to the article, my sense is that it's not quite at the Good Article stage quite yet, i.e. it requires a bit more polish. kencf0618 (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here. I raised some concerns above. Plus, the spinoff List of roller derby leagues would be noticed and would attract negative attention again. That list is probably going to have to be gutted; no one is adding references to the contemporary leagues like they should, and having a list of all 1000+ leagues is just too much, even if they have their own Wikipedia articles. —mjb (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I very much agree that this article is not yet GA quality, but I think the fundamentals are there. It might be worth the push, and if any of the primary editors feel inspired, I would be pleased to pitch in.--Nemonoman (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Looking at the article, if there was a push to get it closer to GA, I think the following things would probably need to be done:
 * Remove the citations from the lead and make the lead a summary of the actual article.
 * Make sure every single statement is sourced. There are a number of places missing sources.
 * Find or create an appropriate information box for the sport that could be put on the article.
 * Improve the rules section, making it longer and applying a bit more organisation to it. Most top level sport articles have a heavy emphasis on the rules.  Roll the strategy section into the section.
 * Reduce the number of citations for non-controversial statements: [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] <-- That is one fact. It isn't necessary.  Possibly spin some of these off into an article like Bibliography of fly fishing only as Bibliography of roller derby.
 * Integrate information from History of roller derby and Roller derby into the History of roller derby. Take the History of roller derby article and basically write a four to five paragraph lead for it, cite it and then have it replace the existing section in Roller derby.
 * Internationalise the article better where possible. The article has a heavy American focus, despite the popularity of roller derby in other countries.
 * Remove external links that are formatted link internal links in the article.
 * Change Contemporary roller derby into say two different sections: Roller derby governance, Global roller derby.
 * Move the non-fiction literature to a Bibliography of roller derby article.
 * Remove the popular culture references. Possibly create an article called something like Roller derby in popular culture.  Example article to follow Ice hockey in popular culture.
 * Make sure pictures illustrate some aspect of the section they are in, rather than have pictures for the sake of pictures.
 * That's a fair amount of work… --

@ LauraHale: Actually, it doesn't seem like that much work...and probably it could get to GA if only most or even many of them were done. A lot of effort if this were to be done in 2-3 days -- what about 2-3 months?

I'd question the absolute necessity of a perfect History of Roller Derby article. Moving that History section off-article is a good idea, but the new article doesn't need be perfect.

Every single statement doesn't need to be sourced per se, if by that you mean every single sentence.

A few subsections in the rules section ought to be plenty. It's actually pretty good.

Actually this looks pretty doable...--Nemonoman (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While I heartily agree with your suggestions, they're beyond my range of Wiki expertise. I'm too close to the subject anyway, so I'm gladly leaving the more formal vetting, polishing and buffing to those more suitably experienced editors who can bring a fresh eye to the project.  Those echelons would certainly have enough suitable raw and semi-processed material to work with, so have at it!  kencf0618 (talk) 01:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and tagged all the paragraphs or statements where there needs to be a citation. A GA will require that those be cited. Every statement doesn't need to be cited, especially if one source covers a whole paragraph.  If there isn't a single source that does that, you'll need multiple citations.  When you start looking at it from that perspective of cleaning up all the  of what needs to be cited, it gets a little intimidating.  The easy fix in some ways is to remove all those unsourced facts.


 * The rules section probably could be broken up into two sections: Flat track, banked-track, women's derby, men's derby, co-ed derby. It might be worth stating at the top that flat track is the standard type.  Outline the rules in some general section: The track, the referees, the players, equipment.  Those are pretty standard methods of breaking out rules that other main sport articles use.  Then, create a subsection for  banked-track, women's derby, men's derby, co-ed derby called something like "variations".  This can solve the problem of getting that out of the contemporary roller derby, and improving the organisation of the article.


 * The history part should be pretty easy as the History of roller derby article looks pretty good. It will also make it easier to keep that section clean from people inserting their favourite leagues and teams into the article with out any rationale by making them integrate that information into the history article, changing the lead there, and then porting it back over to the main article.  It also helps with the issue of summary style.


 * The time it would take to fix this article all really depends on who is doing it and how much effort some one wants to put into it. User:LauraHale/George Bedbrook is an article I basically wrote in four hours. (Plus, three hours at a library looking for sources.)  [Frank Ponta]] is another article that I spent about four hours overhauling.  It is possible to do major rewrites in a few days if some one has access to the sources and just does it.  If access to the sources is harder and the major contributors don't have as much time, it can takes months.  The time frame all depends on who is editing it.


 * The article, in my opinion, has a couple of major areas that need work: 1) Citations, 2) Organisation, 3) Content, 4) WP formating issues (summary style, images, info boxes). It isn't necessarily that difficult. It just requires different skill sets of editors to come in and fix it. :) --LauraHale (talk) 01:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You suggest that we need to majorly expand the lead of the history article and duplicate it verbatim in the history section here, which sounds like a very methodical way of doing things, but I basically disagree with that part of your assessment. I realize there are examples of major sports which have extensive history articles and correspondingly enormous "summaries" in their main articles (e.g. baseball, basketball, association football, tennis), and it probably works for articles with a lot of talented, pedantic writers keeping an eye on things, but it's a maintenance nightmare for niche-y culture articles like this one, which have a very small base of general curators watching and who can write in Wikipedia-appropriate tones.


 * Back when we moved the history to its own article, we did try having a longer summary section here for a while. Maybe it wasn't as well-written as it could've been, but (I believe) its inclusion of too many details resulted in it attracting edits that made the summary become overly redundant and/or out-of-sync with the corresponding sections of the history article. Embedded comments imploring editors to keep the summary a summary and make sure any changes were reflected in the history article went unheeded until we pared it down to what we have today, which is really stable. I'm not entirely opposed to expanding it again, but not if that means it's going to become a distraction.


 * Besides, I and others feel that the main article should be helping the reader understand what derby primarily is about today; that's why the history section no longer even lives near the top of the article (in contrast to all the other sports articles). We don't need five paragraphs of chronology that's redundant with the history article; just the highlights, written in a very general tone, have proven quite sufficient, as measured by the stability of that content as well as the history article. Looking to other sports articles for models, the American football article has a four-paragraph summary of its history, but it's written as a true summary with few specifics that would encourage people to add more of the same kind of details. I like this, but I find the even simpler one- or two-paragraph approach of the hockey and golf articles to be just as, if not more favorable. —mjb (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding "Reduce the number of citations for non-controversial statements: [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90] <-- That is one fact. It isn't necessary." — For the record, I originally had simply put in a single ref tag with a nice note saying to see the references in the history article, but that was deemed unacceptable; supposedly, if the statement is made here, its explicit references have to be here.


 * Also, you seem to be aware that citations are not needed for non-controversial statements, but you really went nuts with citation-needed-tagging a lot of seemingly non-controversial statements in the article. Do you really, genuinely doubt, for example, that the pro leagues choose team names in honor of memorable teams of the past? Do you anticipate the deletion of the entire rules section because every sentence doesn't have a reference to the WFTDA ruleset, instead of just having the single reference in that section's intro? If the answer is not certainly "yes", then I don't feel a citation-needed tag is warranted. —mjb (talk) 03:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Roller Derby DYKs
Related, Adelaide Roller Derby and Victorian Roller Derby League were both DYKs recently. They got 1,300 and 739  page views respectively. :D I believe the Canberra Roller Derby League article is also scheduled to be a DYK soon. That article has also been nominated for good article status. If anyone who contributes to this article could take a look at the Canberra article and try to improve it more, that would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Related to this, I recently started an article for the upcoming Roller Derby World Cup, and have been seeding links to it in various lists and on relevant articles, but as of yet am the only contributor and have not added a heck of a lot. The article is still "unreviewed". It would be great if anyone else wanted to chip in. Reliable sources at this point are hard to come by, but as times passes more and more is appearing. It would be great if that article can be built up, perhaps with the goal in mind of getting it in as a DYK to coincide with the actual event in December. Missed the deadline for the new article category, but perhaps enterprising editors can find a way to get in on the expanded article category, and get it lined up for later DYK usage. I've also been working on the Toronto Roller Derby article with a similar goal, aiming for eventual Good Article status. Good job on the Australia ones. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not NewZealandRollerDerby2010-11-27.jpg, actually.
It has been brought to my attention that the title of this photo is a misnomer (although all of its meta-data is apparently correct), inasmuch as the teams hail from the Australian cities of Hobart and Ballarat. I'll check to see if some other far-flung derby photography is suitable. kencf0618 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for clarification
Lead starts: "The game is based on formation roller skating around a track by two teams" What does 'formation' mean here? or is it "formation roller skating"? Can I get a clue as to the intention of this sentence? It must be of some import, but I don't get it. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 11:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure I get the objection here. It indicates that the skaters are in groups rather than skating as individuals. Maybe there's another way to say it. Echoedmyron ([[User talk:Echoedmyron|

talk]]) 13:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks E for the clarification. Would it be misleading to say something like:
 * The game involves two teams of five members skating in the same direction around a track.

And while we're at it:
 * Game play consists of a series of short matchups ("jams") in which both teams designate a scoring player (the "jammer") who scores points by lapping members of the opposing team. The teams concurrently try to assist their own jammer while hindering the opposing jammer, in effect playing both offense and defense simultaneously during the jam.


 * >Well, I changed it. Please remember that part about "Being Bold" and "Don't bite the newcomer..."--Nemonoman (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The wording scans much better now, IMO. However, I don't think that the citation at the end of the sentence actually backs up the definition at this point. A new citation about the general gameplay that specifies the basic object of the game, and mentions offense and defense would be better to use to back it up. Shouldn't be too hard to find such sources, most news articles these days offer a general primer for readers about how the game is played. I'd hunt something down myself but am tied up at work. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Distance between pivot and jammer lines
The text currently says the pivot line and jammer lines are 30 feet apart; later 20 feet apart. Can someone with a clue please reconcile, or let's replace with more or less 25 feet apart. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography of roller derby
I've created Bibliography of roller derby. This was done to remove two sections that are largely uncited and largely just lists. I've also removed those sections. It might be worth trying to create a section relating to them again and putting it in prose. Alternatively, it might also be an idea to integrate the impact of these documentaries and sources into the history section to better explain why they matter. Any help in improving Bibliography of roller derby would also be much appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead and removed citation
The above citations were all found in the lead. I've put them here for now because I thought people writing the article may find them useful in trying to improve the article, and because some of the information in the lead doesn't appear in the body. As the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, this may be important. --LauraHale (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Grrl Power 1.0 5-Pack
In point of the fact the woman in this agitprop trope is not carrying a gun; the woman with the rifle is a part of the packaging. I had included the bleeding jammer because it's very telling whenever such an image is being used as part of an advocacy campaign (here for the Electronic Frontier Foundation) because the presumption is that roller derby has in all of its third-wave feminist glory arrived, or at least has become notable enough to be used in propaganda as well as in commercials for analgesics. The image in question is 13th button packet down.

http://www.onemillionbuttonsfordigitalfreedom.com/

kencf0618 (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Without a secondary source referencing this information, it's original research. Find a citation. --Nemonoman (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no star on her helmet, thus no secondary source. Nice catch.  kencf0618 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"Lead paragraph should summarize the article"
The lead paragraph should summarize the article. This article is in flux -- last night's changes for example completely altered entire sections. Once things settle down, we should review the article to summarize it in the lead. In the interim, IMO, pretty good is good enough. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Rules rewritten and sourced
The rules section had zero citations. Because of this, I thought it would be extremely difficult to run down sources for each section. Rather than leave that many tags laying around, I found a few sources and completely rewrote the section. It is really important that the section continue to be cited, especially if people are thinking that long term this article may want to go through the Good Article Nomination process. If you're going to improve it, please don't add new information to the article with out first finding a source for it. (But please feel free to improve my wording. It can be a bit clunky. Or reorganise.  Just so long as the section remains sourced.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Let me head desk into infinity. :( There was a single citation at the top of the article. I didn't see it until I basically completely rewrote the section and went to clean up the first part to remove the extra citations or to make sure the citations actually matched with the text. :(  Moment of feeling extremely idiotic. If people want to insert the old text back in, and use the WFTDA rule citation, please do… because yeah. That was a bad bit of not very collaborative editing. --LauraHale (talk) 07:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are any current editors Refs or otherwise highly familiar with the WFTDA rules?--Nemonoman (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to get one of the local refs, who likes to quote chapter and verse of the rule in question, to signup to help with citations. Not too sanguine that this will happen. Surely somebody else has a buddy who quotes scripture? --Nemonoman (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

If a statement appears in the rules section with out a source, I'm going to remove it. If the source is the WFTDA rules, it isn't enough for the source to be in the top section. The citation needs to immediately follow the fact or paragraph the citation applies to. If no sources are available, then the fact needs to be left out. --LauraHale (talk) 21:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Strategy
There has GOT be more to strategy than setting pack speed. I'm just a fan, but I've seen coordinated space creation for the jammer, the "whip" technique, player positioning by size and speed, pack looseness/tightness, when the lead jammer decides to end the jam early, etc. These are just things the casual, ill-informed, inarticulate novice fan can see -- so I can only imagine that coaches are developing plays, defensive strategies, etc. A little help from some smart people? Are there strategy guides that can be referenced?--Nemonoman (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I noticed that WFTDA's fiveonfive magazine has a few articles on strategy, but I only have the last few issues. If someone has kept the older issues, maybe they can check them to see if they have any articles about strategy.  CatPath (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations in rules sections
I have restored most of the recent deletes in this section and restored with tags. Most the material I used came from earlier versions of this article, so there would appear to be a basis for its inclusion. I don't know why for example the infobox can list the protective equipment that I added to the rules section -- subsequently deleted -- if there were no basis for the material. I have restored the deleted items with tags so that it will be easier to note where references are required. I think it's reasonable to assume that most if not all the material can be validated with a scan of the rule book. Knowing what to look for will help me as I find cites.

I intend to play by the WP rules, and know about RS and OR, and have every confidence that I'll deliver the goods. I ask for a little patience, guys. --Nemonoman (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I have made a request @ WikiProject Sports for style and citation guidelines for sections on rules.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a bunch of cites to the rules sections. I think this may want to be changed with a complete cite for the first instance with an included reference identifier, then just the relevant page on subsequent cites (like . Anyway that's a simple global replace, and I appear not to be only geek woorking on this article should the desire to fix it that way arise. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

History section must be brief
LauraHale, after I clearly explained why we kept our summary of the history article short and sweet, you ignored me and brought in vast chunks of text from the history article anyway. Then, just as I predicted, and only a matter of hours later, it was modified by Nemonoman in a way that made it go out of sync with the history article (Runyon was completely removed and Oscar was given co-credit instead of acknowledging that sources disagree on this point). This is not productive. The inclusion of too many details invites these kinds of edits, and it's really not much of a "summary". It's okay to refer people to the history article. I gave examples of a few sports articles that did a very good job of providing useful but detail-free summaries of their histories. We need to follow their lead. —mjb (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi MJB: I'm sure at this point it looks like I'm stomping on everything, but I'm working my way down from the top and haven't yet done a thing to the history section. I've had a little look and agree with your comments.--Nemonoman (talk) 01:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It's just that I much prefer not leaving it in a rough-draft state. This article gets a lot of views and is used by journalists (for better or for worse) as an info source, so I am trying to devote some hours to it tonight to get each paragraph whittled down to at least be a better summary of itself, and not to conflict with the history article or provide any more detail than is absolutely necessary in order to cover the highlights. I took care of the Oscar Seltzer/Damon Runyon confusion, although I'm a bit mystified by the note syntax. —mjb (talk) 03:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * >>mystified by the note syntax<<
 * Me too! Laura, if this is the method you want to use, can you help us understand better its benefits to the article -- and more important for the newbies, how to make it go??--Nemonoman (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi MJB: Just want you to know that your nice section is next on my list of things to stomp on. I like what you say about being brief -- and I think the words can be condensed without loss of substance or flavor. I do mean to collaborate, so let me know if my changes cause excessive heartburn. FWIW, I have really enjoyed your gift of helping me to understand the origins of this sport, which until now I had just assumed arose sui generus. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Roller Derby
Needs subheadings BADLY and organization badly. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Skater names, etc
Many, if not most of the double-entendre names of players and bouts in the All-female, grassroots leagues part of thearticle are a little lame, in my opinion. They are made much worse with the extremely lame explanations following. From some in use in my hometown league, I like "Mazel Tov Cocktail" and "Caslamity Jane", that I think have some impact without the explanation. I've run across other high-impact names on visting teams. There has got to be a funnier bunch. I think examples are needed. I recognize the desire to address a non-US, ESL readership, but I'm not sure the explanation clarifies the joke or confounds it.

Anyway: Anyone have some better ones? Also maybe we can kill the jokes by explaining with a footnote rather than inline. --Nemonoman (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I admit I'm biased here, but I strongly feel that the puns in skater names are pretty lame across the board. I don't think it matters which ones we choose as examples; they're not going to be funny to everyone. Even the "better" examples still recycle the same violent & risqué puns and references to pop culture personalities well past the point of utter cliché. I don't think very much needs to be said about them at all...just that so far, since the current revival began, most but not all current skaters favor playing under such self-adopted pseudonyms, whereas in the past, professional incarnations of the sport, real names were favored, with occasional nicknames bestowed by teammates and fans. It's maybe worth two sentences at most, and examples aren't even needed, IMO. Feel free to gut it. —mjb (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The colorful pseudonyms are part and parcel of contemporary roller derby, so some suitable and representative selection of the same needs to be a part of the article.  kencf0618 (talk) 06:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

References and notes
I'm currently trying to semi-clean out the reference section to make it only actual references. All commentary, notes, quotes from the cited source, etc. I am trying to move to the notes section. Any help that could be provided in making these two sections separate would be appreciated. This can be done by removing the   surrounding those in the reference section with  . This is something that probably needs to be done to get the article ready for any possible Good article nomination. --LauraHale (talk) 10:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Laura: you're doing something new to me here, and I want to learn. Can you please provide the code precisely as an an example? Here's a note I want to add -- it's too much for inline I think:


 * In certain circumstances there might be no lead jammer in a jam: for example if both teams' jammers have be blocked out of bounds before completing their qualifying pass through the pack.


 * Thanks: --Nemonoman (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It would look like that. --LauraHale (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your syntax works great! I'm emphasizing it below to make it easy for others to find. Thanks, Laura.--Nemonoman (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Section rearrangement
Don't shoot me. I think it makes more sense. We can always change it back. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it makes more sense too. Incidentally, I've just attended both days of Boise's 2nd Annual Spudtown Knockdown, and I made sure to mention to several players, et al. that this article is undergoing a major push to reach feature article status.  (I see now that, presumably because of the churn, it's temporarily dipped to C-status... Oh well!)  Anyway, I hope to see some feedback and input from them, particularly on the discussion page, but we shall see.  kencf0618 (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Oval Track & Simultaneous Offense and Defense
AFAIK, roller derby has always taken place on an oval track. (For that matter, I can't offhand think of any circular tracks whatsoever in sport; any citations to the contrary would be welcome.) Furthermore, while instances do occur in the game when there is only one jammer in play (i.e. the player who actually scores points), typically with two jammers in play offense and defense occur simultaneously. kencf0618 (talk) 00:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to concur on this. I say if there's no objections after a day or two that someone reverts that. (Unless someone can cite a source that shows why that's a "false" assumption...) Echoedmyron (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you agree that it's a normal part of gameplay, but not something that's the case 100% of the time, then why would you want to remove the word "typically" from "offense and defense typically occur simultaneously"?
 * Also, this is a non sequitur: Points are scored when the designated scoring player (the "jammer") of a given team laps members of the opposing team; hence offense and defense occur simultaneously. It's not at all clear how one team's scoring process involves simultaneous offense and defense.
 * My understanding is that simultaneous offense & defense is a result of both teams normally having scoring and defending players on the track at the same time.
 * So I feel that both the lead and the rules section need to be adjusted somewhat for this. —mjb (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to parse, but I've tweaked the lead paragraph. The defensive aspect is implicit, since there's a lot more to preventing the other team's jammer from scoring than blocking her with blockers.  kencf0618 (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a copy of the rules that can be cited to clarify this and improve the wording? Especially say the WFTDA rules? --LauraHale (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Kencf and I weren't the ones who removed the word "typically", that was an anon. The phrasing may be inelegant, but I think it is at least accurate. I was questioning more the wording in the anon's edit summary about "false assumptions". Echoedmyron (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked the opening, as the sentence said that defense was occurring without explaining exactly what made that so. Also adjusted the first part of that sentence, as it specifically is the opposing jammer trying to "do the same", not the team as a whole. Thoughts? Echoedmyron (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're on the right track. The difficulty is that we're trying to shoehorn two layers of simultaneous activity (offense and defense typically occurring simultaneously in the game play of both packs) into the opening paragraph of a Wikipedia article.  AFAIK roller derby is the only sport where there is no toggling between offense and defense, so it deserves prominent mention. kencf0618 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like where you've gone with this, I think it makes sense. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It hadn't occurred to me, but the offense/defense simultaneity IS unique, so far as I know. Is there any hope of finding a cite for that?--Nemonoman (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the program from Spudtown Knockdown which was just held in Boise, Idaho, and it contains this bit in its section explaining who the blockers are: "Blockers play offense by assisting their Jammer at the same time they play defense and block the opposing Jammer."  Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a .pdf on-line which can be cited, but I'll see what I can do.  I don't know how much of the program is from a template, and how much is locally produced; there's no printing or copyright information whatsoever. kencf0618 (talk) 03:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Images of goofy costumes?
The article mentions the goofy costumes -- can we get some pictures of some of the better ones? A gallery would be illustrative; picture worth a thousand words, etc. For exmple A woman in town here dresses up a a dragon. I'll see what I do. Who else has pix?

Also mentioned: half time shows. A big part of draw in our league. Kookie Nouveau Vaudeville Stuff, very cool. During a recent bout during half-time this same skater skated the rink on FLAMING ROLLER SKATES -- would that be an ok pic to add??--Nemonoman (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have more than 500 photographs in my Flickr set Roller Derby in Boise, so feel free. And of course there are thousands to choose from other photographers. (You can always request that someone release a photo under an appropriate Wikipedia Creative Commons license; I've often done so myself.)  I wouldn't put any emphasis on the half-time shows, however, given that the athletes themselves typically have plenty of semiotic regalia. One might even say a plethora.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DerbyDeLosMuertos.JPG  kencf0618 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Excessive citations, raw urls, link rot, roller derby around the globe citation
I've removed the link rot. If some one could go through and make sure the text around the removed links is supported by existing citations, that would also be awesome. Also, there is no need for three citations for a fact. Two is more than adequate. I've removed excessive citations. Can some one go through and check that the citations that remain continue to support the text? --LauraHale (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Other citation issues…


 * A, B, C, D, E, F. [1]

In the above, citation 1 supports statements A, B, C, D, E, and F.


 * A, B, C, D, E [2], F [1]

In the above, citation 2 supports statements A, B, C, D, E. Citation 1 supports only F.  If you want citation 2 to only support statement E, it needs to be cited as:


 * A, B, C, D, [1] E, [2], F. [1].

The easiest way to solve this appearance of overciting that may be visually unappealing is to either find a source that covers all statements A to F, or to change the order to something like:


 * A, B, C, D, F [1], E [2].

This is a big deal if the article is ever going to get to GA, because the text needs to be supported by the citations. --LauraHale (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for clarification on rules
Can some smart people please help clarify these statements with fuller explanations of the actual rules? Thanks.

''During jam formation, the pack moves counterclockwise, during which time players can change position. ''
 * ? isn't postion-changing sort of the whole point through the jam? I'm missing why position changing is being mentioned in connection with jam formation.
 * Jostling for position is the point, yes - I gather the point of mentioning it here is to indicate that they do not skate in a set order, perhaps.Echoedmyron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

and play begins in earnest 
 * ? does the clock start with the first or second whistle?
 * Clock starts with first whistle, when pack is released. Once last member of pack crosses start line, then second whistle goes releasing jammers. But the clock does start with first whistle. Technically, if pack does not move and cross line, they can eat up entire two minutes without jammers being able to go. This happened at the WFTDA championships last year, a lot of people weren't happy about it.Echoedmyron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

until they rejoin the pack
 * ? the sentence references BLOCKERS knocked out of bounds. Do different rules apply to jammers?
 * Not necessarily. But maybe I'm blind, but i can't find this in the article, so I'm not sure about the context.Echoedmyron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

^??ALSO what is specifically required to "rejoin the pack". The section on "Western style" talks about skating backwards as some sort of tricky defense? WTF??
 * The pack is defined by the largest group of skaters with at least one member of each team in it, within a closet distance, usually 20 feet from beginning to end of the grouping. Players outside of that grouping are considered "out of play" and forbidden from making contact. The Western thing is more a tactic that developed out west. The idea is that for anyone, if you are knocked out of bounds by a skater, you have to re-enter the track is the same relative position as you left it - that is, you can not re-enter the track at an advantage. Among other things, this prevents people from skating out of bounds to go around people and improve their position. So, if you are forced out, you have to enter the track again behind the skater who knocked you out of bounds - the exceptions being a) when the skater who hits you out in the process goes out of bounds herself, or b) hits the ground in the process. In this case you may re-enter the track in front, provided you are not passing other skaters in the process. The Western thing refers to a situation where a skater knocks out a skater while she herself stays in play, and knowing that the out of bounds player needs to re-enter behind her, she skates backwards - without making contact with other skaters, mind you - forcing the out of bounds skater to have to skate further to the back to re-enter.Echoedmyron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

 hitting or "checking" the other skaters
 * ? My impression is you can bang from the side, not from the front, can't use hands, limbs, trip, etc. My guess is that there's a mnemonic that coaches and players use to describe legal blocks/checks. Is there?
 * I'm not aware of any mnemonics for this, but they could exist. For clarification on this, and other rules, you may want to read up on the WFTDA ruleset. You can find them here: Echoedmyron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

That'll do for the nonce....--Nemonoman (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Periods and Period lengths:
 * 2 periods, yes? each 30 minutes? with a halftime break of what: 20?


 * Until there are sources for the rules section, it might be better to not work on it. There isn't a single thing tagged with a citation in the section. --LauraHale (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, typically bouts are two 30 minutes halves, but halftime is not necessarily mandated by a ruleset. It can vary from place to place, among other things, due to venue access or what other events are taking place. This is the sort of thing you may find in a typical news story about derby, but halftimes would likely only get mentioned if there's interesting entertainment!Echoedmyron (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * WFTDA's official rules have mandated two 30 minute periods since I think the 4.0 rule set. WFTDA had internally (read: quietly) stopped sanctioning three 20s bouts some months before. WORD, OSDA, and MADE rules require four 15 minute periods, with shorter breaks between periods one-two and three-four, and a longer halftime (a la American football). As far as I've ever heard, the "official" (well, as official as they get) Renegade Rollergirl rules still skate three 20 minute periods. OSDA persisted in skating three 20s a bit longer than WFTDA did in their flat track rules, before changing them to have four 15s like their banked track rules. TXRD Lonestar Rollergirls' rules (which only they use) have four 8 minute periods, with the clock stopping between jams.


 * My take on all of this is that it varies a fair bit from rule set to rule set. If you want to touch on this at all, I'd suggest stating that most flat track leagues skate two 30s while most banked track leagues skate four 15s. That's a tricky fact to find a good citation for. Perhaps one might be found in the Down and Derby book? TimBRoy (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again, E. I think some of the items I quoted were removed in Laura's massive rewrite last night.--Nemonoman (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Television section has factual issues.
I don't really have time to rewrite and source it, but here's some factual errors in the Television section.

Jerry Seltzer is the son, not the brother of Leo Seltzer. That's citeable to a number of sources on the web and in print. While Jerry was the titular "Commissioner" of RollerJam (which began airing in 1999, long after Jerry shut down his IRDL league in 1973), that was more of an acting role than an actual league management position (though one book suggests he probably did some consulting and advising early on). The show even had an actress playing Jerry's daughter. Jerry's stated that he grew frustrated with the pro wrestling type angles and left the show, to be replaced with another individual who played "Commissioner" on the show.

Throwing the RollerJam reference in there suggests that Jerry's primary involvement was with RollerJam and that that show reflects his input into the sport. Jerry took over Roller Derby from his father (not brother) Leo in 1958. It aired on local TV in San Francisco (and later Seattle) and Jerry began syndicating the show (which enabled the teams to tour). Tapes were provided to stations in exchange for shipping charges and free advertising of the league's local (tour) appearances. In that sense, Roller Derby began following the professional wrestling business model.

The book Roller Derby to RollerJam was written to sell RollerJam to classic derby fans (its release timed for when the series hit the air) while introducing fans of the new show to the sport's history. While the Roller Derby portions are excellent and (IMO) quite factual, some of the RollerJam section is decidedly promotional in nature. Down and Derby is a better source for details on the nature of RollerJam.

I don't know how much of this could or should be incorporated. But what is in there isn't just poorly stated, it's factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimBRoy (talk • contribs) 20:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the word "bout" from the television section. Prior to 2001, all Roller Derby publications and TV shows that I've come across referred to their events as "games." The press sometimes referred to them as "matches" (as they sometimes do today). One of the three founders of the first "modern derby" league BGGW had a boxing background. She's mentioned on Facebook that she likely called their first game a "bout" out of force of habit. There's no real way to lock that down as a fact, and unless a magazine or other citeworthy source quoted her on it, a cite isn't likely to be found. Rather than replace "bouts" with "games" I simply removed "bouts" as the sentence didn't really need a qualifier for attendance.

Thing to know as a roller derby editor: "Bouts" instead of "games" is one of the things that "classic derby" fans tend to dislike about modern roller derby. Using the word "bout" in any reference to historical roller derby can incite those folks to edit the article in unhelpful ways. TimBRoy (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

New roller derby league stubs
If anyone has the time or interest, it would be really great if they could work on ANU Roller Derby League, Sun State Roller Derby League, Malice Springs Roller Derby League and Sydney Roller Derby League? Get them long enough to nominate for WP:DYK? They also need things like logos. --LauraHale (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of bounds rules?
I know there are some. What happens with when a skater goes out of bounds unforced, particularly a jammer in mid-pass? What is the process for returning to play? Enquiring minds want to know??--Nemonoman (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For WFTDA rules, see and .  If they skate out of bounds to maintain speed or avoid a block, it is a minor penalty.  If they do it to substantially shorten the lap distance, it is a major.  If it is due to missing a block, or incompetent skating, it is not penalised.  They must return to the track without bettering their relative position; if they cut in front of one skater, it is a minor penalty (and no point, if they are a jammer).  If they cut in front of two or more, or the foremost opposing blocker, it is a major. Warofdreams talk 15:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Roller derby league deletion discussion
Romsey Town Rollerbillies, a British league, is currently nominated for deletion. Any views on the requirements which a roller derby league should meet in order to merit an article on Wikipedia would be welcome. Warofdreams talk 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd try for a couple of things: Media coverage in the local community, coverage in roller derby magazines. If a league has members on the national representative side, and has competed in noteworthy bouts or done noteworthing derby related things, that might also be helpful in establishing notability.  If a team is ranked as one of the top in the country, that might also be worth identifying notability. --LauraHale (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All useful thoughts. Thanks for your contribution to the AfD thread; I've given a general response there.  Rankings are an issue for the UK, as there's nothing even semi-official out there - although I might be writing something on this for Inside Line. Warofdreams talk 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Associations section getting too big
The section on associations keeps growing and attracting edits of questionable value. I suspect proponents of OSDA, MADE, etc. feel slighted by the emphasis on WFTDA and want to draw attention and web traffic to their clubs, so they are trying to get as many links and mentions into the article as possible.

I think it would be better to pare down this section to just a couple of paragraphs, and not have subsections about each organization. We don't need details about every association, especially not the kind of details that change often or just sound like bragging (# of members, for example). Even much of the historical WFTDA info is really not that important to understanding roller derby itself.

We also shouldn't link to external sites from within the prose. If an organization is important, it deserves its own article and we can just mention the organization and link to the article, where people are free to throw in all the details they want. If it doesn't have an article, we should just mention it without a link. —mjb (talk) 12:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

These organizations are not "clubs," but rather governing bodies for co-ed and all male leagues. There are hundreds of leagues who do not fit WFTDA's mold of all-female, flat-track, and these associations need to be recognized. How can you say the section is too long, when in fact, the entire roller derby page has become dedicated to an form of roller derby, that thousands of roller derby athletes do not adhere to? We need to, in fact, add an entire co-ed section to the "Roller Derby" page.—miamoe2010 (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Potential WP:CANVAS issue
This is a copy and paste from my talk page. As it is relevant to this article, I have cross posted it here. --LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Your new friend is here, and you have all crossed the line, WFTDA is not the end all be all to roller derby. There are thousands of skaters who do not skate by their rules, or are governed by them. Your failure to recognize these other associations has been cited, and the page now reads like an advertisement for the WFTDA. A petition is going around the internet, and this has come to the attention of many groups who frequent this page. --miamoe2010 23:104, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You're not going to get consensus for what you're talking about. The most appropriate place for an American only organisation is Roller derby in the United States.  As for letting people know, WP:CANVAS is a policy you should become familiar with because if you posted to several sites asking people to edit the article to push a certain point of view, you may get into trouble.  Beyond that, provide the sources for MADE on the MADE article and Roller derby in the United States, show that the organisation is relevant to the women's sport of roller derby, demonstrate international significance as to why they matter outside the United States and back that up with sources.  If you can do that, then no one will complain about the inclusion of the organisation in the article.  That hasn't been done yet. --03:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I looked at creating an article on MADE a while ago, as I thought it might well be notable. Back then, the only sources I could find were self-published, plus the one interview on Inside Track.  Is there anything else out there?  If not, it's going to struggle to meet Wikipedia notability standards.  If so, then great, but for coverage in this article, it needs to show that it is a significant part of the worldwide sport of roller derby.  If DNN are correct in stating that more than 98% of bouts are under WFTDA rules (and I suspect that they are, given that theirs and the derived MRDA rules are the only rulesets used by leagues outside the U.S., which are now in the majority), then it's going to be very difficult to justify covering any other contemporary rulesets in this article. Warofdreams talk 10:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It is perfectly understandable that the WFTDA rule-set is the rule-set explained on the Roller Derby page. WFTDA is the majority-played rule-set and as long as it is stated that the rules being explained are WFTDA and that other association rules do exist I think everyone would be ok. MADE has their own wiki page and their rules can be explained there. Perhaps we should look at a page like basketball as an example. The NBA rule-set is the most popular in the world, but other assoications (ABA) are noted and partially explained on the basketball page.

Captain jim1 (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to reach consensus, I'm including the refs to Inside Track as cites for the "other associations" fact. This validates that WFTDA is not the only game in town, although the other assocs as this point are not truly notable in this section of this article. I doubt this will be accepted by the current flock of highly determined editors, but c'mon -- an association with 4 teams? An association with 200 skaters? In the world of tens of thousands? --Nemonoman (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can I recommend that perhaps the easiest and most effective way to resolve all of this is to create a separate WFTDA page? On the main roller derby page things can be much more concise. The History, basics of play and several other sections would be maintained, but WFTDA specific items would most obviously be on the WFTDA page. It would be mentioned that in the US and Europe that the predominant rule-set played is WFTDA and could list different associations in bulleted form for both the USA and the rest of the world. By doing this the complaint that the roller derby page is a WFTDA platform is alleviated and since the roller derby page will be much smaller, listing different associations allows for the smaller associations to get their credit. Your argument that an organization with 200 skaters doesn't belong, but what organization currently can compete with WFTDA's size? It would be wise to follow the Captain jim1 (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

International significance? Really? Does this "international-ness" extend to Europe? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked there were other international destinations beyond Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which international roller derby organisations outside of the United States and Europe were you referring to? I'm under the impression that roller derby is not that large in Africa and Asia. In New Zealand and Australia, they use the WFTDA association rules and several leagues are attempting to gain membership.  Beyond that, the national squads for both countries use WFTDA rules. --LauraHale (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can recommend it all you like, but you're not going to get consensus on the issue. The WFTDA rules are effectively THE RULES for much of the roller derby being played around the world.  There are a few notable exceptions, when it comes to men's derby and co-ed derby but these exceptions too appear to be internationally scoped.  Smaller associations, especially ones that exist only in one country, don't reach the level of being notable and don't fall within the scope of a broad, general article.  They would fit better in an article like Roller derby in the United States or Men's roller derby or History of roller derby, List of roller derby leagues or even creating an article called Roller derby associations or List of roller derby associations to discuss these.  If these smaller associations had recognition from national sporting bodies, held international competitions, drew large crowds upwards of 5,000 to 10,000 and received significant press coverage, the topic could probably be revisited.   --LauraHale (talk) 05:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Now you're just being stubborn. The WFTDA rules may be the most commonly used rules but they are not THE rules. Again, I reference the basketball wiki as a guideline on how this could be set up. For instance, for basketball rules there is a separate wiki that is almost entirely devoted to NBA rules, but they do explain other rules. It doesn't clutter up the basketball main page with just NBA rules because basketball is more than just the NBA. I understand it would be a bit of work to accomplish this, but it should make all parties happy and is technically correct.


 * You keep mentioning that these other associations play in just ONE country which, in your opinion, makes them minor. What about the fact that almost all of the roller derby in the world is played in this ONE country. Basketball is the same way. Sure it's played everywhere, but overwhelmingly it's played in the US. I've brought up the point before, but if the 2nd largest roller derby association is considerably smaller than the largest - should it be excluded form the roller derby wiki? Logically that makes little sense. And for the record, MADE receives plenty of press coverage. They were recently interviewed by Fox News in Philadelphia and have been storied in the Philadelphia Inquirer, etc. They also host a very large derby expo in Wildwood, NJ (CCRE) which draws skaters from all over the country. Further - they do have international games. This coming summer the US Mainland team will be playing Puerto Rico. Your standards are realistically unobtainable and WFTDA most often fails to reach all of them.


 * It would be nice if we could reach a consensus on how to proceed on the discussion boards rather then having people "just do things". Reconsider removing WFDTA rules to a separate page about rules and/or WFTDA and condensing the roller derby page to be more about the sport in general. Captain jim1 (talk) 07:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not true that "almost all of the roller derby in the world" is played in one country (something which is also not true of basketball). Derby Roster shows that around half the world's derby leagues are based outside the U.S.  The second largest roller derby association is the Canadian Women's Roller Derby Association, although it doesn't do all that much.  MADE is probably third, although it's hard to confirm membership figures for it or for WORD.  Incidentally, there are some roller derby leagues in Asia, and they exclusively play to WFTDA rules.  The new leagues in South Africa also look likely to adopt WFTDA rules.  It's this massively more widespread use of their rules - >98% of bouts, according to DNN, versus less than 1% - which is the important distinction.  It's great to hear that there are reliable sources for the MADE article, and I look forward to seeing some of them included in it, as at present it's heavily reliant on self-published sources. Warofdreams talk 10:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Governance / Associations section
I completely removed this because it was completed uncited. I've replaced it with a section on governance that provides a more international perspective, because too many of the associations linked appeared to be American based and the sport is played around the world and most of the participants outside the United States are female. If the American and American territories only organisations are put back in with out discussing the international scene, I'll probably slap a tag for American bias on it. Roller derby is a global game. --LauraHale (talk) 20:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Could it be agreed up on that WFTDA is not THE governing body of the sport. It is possibly the most prevalent, but implying on the roller derby wiki page that it IS the governing body misleads the uninformed public. Stating that it is the most prevalent lets people know it is the most popular, but also lets them know that there are other governing bodies. This one should be a no brainer. Captain jim1 (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Using "the largest" works for me. I think this issue seems to be put to rest. 192.148.195.254 (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

(Re)Creation of an Associations Section & WFDTA Main Page
A lot has been discussed lately about which associations are important and which are not. Some feel that WFTDA has had such a strong influence on the sport and thusly should be intertwined into the roller derby main article while others feel that the other associations are being neglected merely because they are not as big as WFTDA. I propose that on the roller derby main page, WFTDA should get mention in the intro paragraph as the most popular association. The roller derby main page is short enough that an Associations section could be created that lists the major associations in the world/country. The associations could even be subdivided into USA / Non-USA (or even more, country by country).

On the roller derby main page, the "game play" section should be modified to contain only rules that apply to all leagues. It could be mentioned in particular rules that there may be differences between different associations. Alternatively, at the start of the game play section it could state that the following rules are the current WFTDA rules and to visit the pages on other associations.

While the importance and significance of WFTDA in roller derby is obvious and should be presented as such, it really is not what DEFINES roller derby. The name itself let's us know this.. Women's FLAT TRACK Derby Association. It's Flat Track and for Women. Roller Derby is played on a variety of surfaces and is played by all genders. I don't believe that anyone wants to seen as the dictator of the roller derby wikipedia page and there is an obvious division between many of us on what direction the roller derby main page, WFTDA, and other associations should have.

Thoughts? Captain jim1 (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In line with this suggestion, I have created List of roller derby associations. It's stubby at the moment -- VERY STUBBY, but it might provide a means to provide a point of reference. Please help me improve it.


 * This is a good start. Perhaps it should be mentioned early in the roller derby article? A good spot would be in the opening paragraph. The final sentence could be amended to read "Roller derby is played by more than 1,000 amateur leagues in a multitude of associations on every inhabited continent" ... with the link to the associations page there. Captain jim1 (talk) 18:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * >>the "game play" section should be modified to contain only rules that apply to all leagues.
 * This idea, sorry to say, is a rat's nest. The game as played by the vast majority of leagues and the game as viewed by the vast majority of spectators is played by WFTDA rules. I think we make it clear that the rules being described are based on the WFTDA rule-set, and the at that there are variations. Saying "played on quad skates -- except for those leagues using in line skates" etc., will get old. Also the number of rules common to ALL leagues will be a very short list indeed, and not very helpful by itself in understanding the game.--Nemonoman (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand that it certainly would get cumbersome repeating things like "except for leagues that .....". A good alternative might be to have a very high-level explanation of the rules (the Basics of Play section) with a link to a wiki page Rules of Roller Derby which can go into much greater detail, etc describing Jams, positioning, scoring and strategy. The point of the roller derby wiki page should be to inform the reader about the sport and let them funnel down to find more detailed information about the details through other wiki pages.


 * The Renegade Rollergirls essentially have no rules, so Captain jim1's plan wouldn't work. Best to discuss the rules used in the vast majority of games, and briefly note that there are other rule-sets out there (and, more importantly, there were other rule-sets used pre-2001).  I've added some information to the list of roller derby associations article; it is still missing information on pre-2001 organizations, but it's a useful start. Warofdreams talk 15:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be difficult. What do you think about creating a separate "Rules of Roller Derby" wiki page as I described above? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain jim1 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You can have more details on a Rules of roller derby article that goes into these other leagues… That's pretty standard for most top level sport articles. (And some top level sports have separate articles about other rules than the standards for the game. See Halifax Rules and National Hockey League rules for examples.)  If you want to do that, I'd suggest copying the existing text on over and building from that.  If you're hoping to use this as a short circuit around the leagues you're trying to promote who are not using WFTDA rules and get it into this article, it isn't going to happen because we're right back to an issue of American bias in the article by covering rules that are used in an extremely limited part of the world.  There still isn't any credible sources that show the rules outside the WFTDA are played by many leagues, that these leagues have large membership, that these rules are played by non-Americans… so we're right back where we started. --LauraHale (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am by no means trying to promote any other league. My goal is to eliminate a slight bias towards WFTDA on the main roller derby page that leads people to believe that THIS IS roller derby. I am glad that we are finding common ground on how to satisfy all the parties who have recently been involved. What is nice about having a Rules of Roller Derby page is that it can be lengthier than what would normally fit on the roller derby wiki. Of course WFTDA gets the top spot and will probably be the most involved, but I think it would be reasonable for other associations which are well known (MADE, OSDA, international associations) could have sections as well -- as long as they don't get out of hand and become too lengthy. Historical rules could also be included. Wiki's are designed to be great, resourceful centers so including other popular rule-sets seems like the right choice. I think an associations website for referencing rules is acceptable. No one can argue that the rule book found at wftda.com is not an acceptable reference.. therefore the rule book found on OSDA or MADE's website should be equally acceptable. Captain jim1 (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is nothing that suggests the leagues you mention are particularly well known. There is a major issue with sourcing for statement. I can't find what I would consider a single reliable source for MADE rules outside of maybe but not completely sure MADE's own website.  This is the case for WFTDA's rules: There are multiple independent sources for WFTDA's rules.  These rules are used by most leagues outside of the USA.  There are few credible and reliable sources for what you're talking about.


 * Let's assume for a moment that your point is valid and that we need to cover rules outside of the WFTDA because these variants are notable. Let's assume the associations in question pass notability guidelines under general notability or organisation notability. We would need to move on to the source issue. Cambridge rules, Sheffield Rules, Halifax Rules, Knickerbocker Rules, Burnside Rules are all articles about alternative rule sets for various sports. What sources, other than the leagues themselves, do you have to document, discuss and summarise these rules? Can you provide links to newspaper articles, magazine articles, academic journals, documentaries, sport federation sites not affiliated with the league, independent sport news sites that discuss these rules?  If you can provide enough reliable sources and verifiable sources to support an article related to this?  It isn't enough for a claim to be made.  (You keep claiming MADE is the second largest league in the USA, but there is not a single source on Google News that supports that claim, nor is there a single source on Google Books that supports this claim.) You need to provide sources for it: Reliable and verifiable sources.  Do these sources exist?  If they exist, then I'm all for it.  If you provide me with links to these sources, I'll even write the article myself and use as much of the source as possible to do an information dump.  What are your sources? ( --LauraHale (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just as a tiny aside, notability (and in particular the GNG) doesn't govern content within articles, just whether or not the article can exist. The main issue here is due weight - what is the proper amount of weight to give a rule set that is not in common usage, given that the numbers who follow the alternative rules are relatively low? That's where the balance issues become difficult. At the moment the article acknowledges that there are other organizations and that there are co-ed leagues (I dislike the term, but that seems to be in vogue), so I think that's a decent start. How much more is needed is the tricky bit. - Bilby (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Weight is an issue. And I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with mentioning variants.  There just need to be sources.  I've gone to my pile of general sport books and derby materials on my shelves, and the only variant Down and derby : the insider's guide to roller derby talks about is the Renegade Roller Derby rules. (They give it one page out of about 20.) The sport dictionaries and encyclopaedia reference the rules for professionalism but provide no real guidance for the rules beyond that.  (I think one says that roller derby is single sex, and men and women do not play together.) Mentioning variants on a rules article that can be sourced would be awesome.  If they can't be reliably sourced, then I don't think they should be included.  I'd opt for something like the ratio similar to Down and derby : the insider's guide to roller derby in a daughter article. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's where it all get's tricky. We can use primary sources within an article, so long as they're used carefully and only for uncontentious statements, but how do we work out weight when there are no secondary sources to calculate it, given that they are meant to be the guide? - Bilby (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it is a problem. I've been poking at the librarians at both the University of Canberra and the National Sport Information Centre to get more roller derby league materials, but there isn't much I can ask for. What I can find either 1) is about roller derby during the professional era, which treats roller derby not as a sport but as entertainment, and 2) roller derby works that deal with it as a completely women's sport and only use WFTDA rules.  The first are more plentiful and mostly date to the 1970s and 1980s.  (And we're talking like four or five books.)  The second I've found about two.  :/  I wouldn't mind trying to weight based on participation if we don't have the sources to single weight, but with out an international governing body, getting those is hard. :( --LauraHale (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Roller Derby Inside Track's coverage of the major associations in Roller Derby has a very lengthy article on just MADE. This reference has been cited numerous times and ignored. What more do you want? They discuss all aspects of MADE in that article. I would also like to point out that MADE is 2 years old and is probably not very popular in Australia where Laura is doing her research. The fact that we keep referring to "WFTDA Rules" makes it clear that roller derby IS NOT WFTDA and other rules exist. Let them be known. I have continually cited the Derby Roster page as the source of MADE being the 2nd largest association in the United States. Find me another list that disputes that and we can talk. Yes, by far the majority of derby is played under WFTDA rules - no one is arguing against that... likewise, by far the majority of the coverage on derby in the USA will be covering WFTDA events. That doesn't allow sources that aren't as numerous as WFDTA's sources to be discounted. There are my two credible sources - please explain why they are not good enough. They are trust worthy, they are 3rd party, and they do not contradict anything. Captain jim1 (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ". Find me another list that disputes that and we can talk." <-- If you're basing your assertion based on counting, then you're doing original research. This source says nothing about it being the second largest and is an interview with some one from MADE and is not usable in all situations.   Even if it is, we're still having an issue of undue weight for mentioning it because the organisation is American + US territory only.  An argument could be made that we should include the single largest derby organisation in each country ahead of MADE.  The Canadians and the British organisations would probably have a better claim there.   Near as I can tell, doing original research based on counting at Derby Roster, the Canadian association is bigger than MADE and more worthy.  I'd also argue that the Australian Skate Australia is bigger than MADE based on Derby Roster, and Australian leagues being affiliated with Skate Australia.  --LauraHale (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for major revisions
The multitude of genres of roller derby is part of its unique existence. Because there is no recognized national governing body in the U.S., roller derby's largest country of participation, there are many versions. Including renegade, banked track, women's, men's, co'ed and various organizations. By mentioning the WFTDA in the first paragraph, and never again any other U.S. organization, it portrays roller derby as a female only, flat track only sport, which is a highly dated interpretation. This article is inaccurate and biased, and will stunt derby's growth as the many news reporters and enthusiasts who use it will continue to be misinformed that this is a female only, flat track only sport. Men will continue to be mocked for playing a women's sport and junior roller derby will be stunted with this portrayal.


 * Because there is no recognized national governing body in the U.S., <-- That answers that. Take this issue to Roller derby in the United States. This is clearly an AMERICAN issue, and by including an American only organisation, you're giving undue weight to them above anyone else, especially since the history section is already American centric.  This article is for the whole of the modern women's sport of roller derby, not just the United States.  If you want to argue that American women's roller derby should be the dominant focus because the sport is not played as much elsewhere, the quality of play internationally is inferior, etc., then provide the citations and player totals and international rankings to support that.  Otherwise, this article needs to be written with an international audience in mind, and the US should not be given weight above the rest of the world because the women's sport of roller derby is played around the world. --LauraHale (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The WFTDA is an international organisation, not just an American one. Indeed, every league outside the U.S. skates under WFTDA rules, or the derived MRDA ones.  Men's roller derby is developing just fine in the UK and Canada, and we've even recently had the first co-ed bout over here.  But this shouldn't distract us from the predominant position of women's flat track roller derby in the contemporary sport, and the role of any Wikipedia article is to describe the topic as it is, not to promote particular aspects of it which we personally might believe should recieve greater attention. Warofdreams talk 10:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There appears to be an effort to insert MADE into this article regardless of its lack of notability and lack of verifiable secondary sources; also the current consensus that these are basically US-only associations more suited to inclusion in Roller derby in the United States. I hope the individuals making these edits will discuss the matter here. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There have been many sources to verify MADE. It is international. It is notable not only for it's size, the fact that it's international AND it is the largest co-ed association. Who are the people joining in on the consensus that MADE is not notable? If the goal is to have information pre-dominant about WFTDA because it is the most prevalent than it should have it's on wiki page. Perhaps this is a suitable alternative than removing all references to other associations because they are simply not as big. Also, in reference to the putting MADE only on the Roller derby in the United States ... that is a list of leagues, not associations. If you do research you will see MADE is in fact a notable association. If you would like links that clearly show this let me know, but you should be able to easily find them yourself. Captain jim1 (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * How many of those sources were citation-worthy? MADE's big problem is that it's tended to be referred to only on its own site. It doesn't even publish a listing of its membership on that site, it farms that out to Roller Derby Worldwide. Find news articles referencing MADE itself. I'd advise the MADE folks (or better yet, editors who aren't MADE folks) to produce some sources that MADE wasn't responsible for publishing itself. That aren't social networking sites or blogs. In other words, if one of their leagues talked to the Daily Fishwrapper, the Schenectady Morning Constitutional or the Weekly Community News, cite that. So long as the article actually mentions MADE.
 * I don't believe I've touched any of the MADE references in this article and others. But I do wish the folks from MADE would stop conjuring up conspiracy theories about who and why their information disappears off Wikipedia. Spend that time fixing the problems instead of arguing that they aren't really problems or that an editor who lives in Australia is a player with a league based in California. Learn how Wikipedia works and try to get it right. That gets you somewhere, instead of adding tons of teeth-gnashing for themselves and others. TimBRoy (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

First roller derby league GA
On a happy note… :D :D :D yay! :D We have the first roller derby league to have good article status. woot woot! :D The hope is to eventually bring the article to featured status. If anyone is interested in helping with this, guidelines are here and the help would be appreciated. :D --LauraHale (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * On a more confused note, what's the article??--Nemonoman (talk) 00:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot to say that. :) Canberra Roller Derby League. -LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats, Laura!--Nemonoman (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well done, great work! Warofdreams talk 13:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification: Discussion of notability requirements for roller derby leagues and skaters
I started a discussion on the sport notability talk page about possible notability guidelines for roller derby leagues. Your input would be appreciated. --LauraHale (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have opposed more restrictive standards of inclusion per WP:NOTPAPER, WP:CREEP and the fact that the more people who play roller derby, the healthier everyone will be and the lower our medical bills will be. The cost of disk space is effectively a couple orders of magnitude lower now that off site backups have come on line. Dualus (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If an article cannot pass WP:GNG, then it does not pass the most basic guideline for existing. There are reasons to carve out exceptions on the margins, but the two reasons you cited are not good enough and are generally arguments that appear on the list of reasons to not bring up in an article for deletion request. The restrictive standards are not very restrictive and ensure that WP:GNG is generally met while protecting articles that are marginal.  Improving people's health is not good enough, because third grade cricket teams would qualify under that reason, and almost every youth sports team would. Such precedent would patently not be allowed. --LauraHale (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please help rescue Romsey Town Rollerbillies
The Romsey Town Rollerbillies article got deleted because people thought it was borderline, but I saw it mentioned on a mailing list I try to help out on sometimes and tried to save it. It now has 11 more sources, at least two of which are reliable, secondary, and substantial, several external links, and a logo (but not for long if it doesn't get rescued.)

Article Incubator/Romsey Town Rollerbillies is the article, and the incomplete assessment form is on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Romsey Town Rollerbillies. Anyone who has not yet edited it can complete the assessment and potentially return it to article space. Dualus (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ thanks to SarahStierch. Dualus (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)