Talk:Wheelchair racquetball classification

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Racquetball classification → Disability racquetball classification – This is only classification for disability racquetball, not for racquetball in general. After this is renamed, the current title should be redirected to the main article Racquetball 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.



Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disability racquetball classification → Racquetball classification – Per WP:COMMONNAME. The common name for the sport on the disability sport is racquetball. It is not "disability racquetball " of "Paralympic racquetball ." This is common name is found in the literature. There is no confusion on the able bodied side. LauraHale (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has nothing to do with classification of racquetball in general, and only deals with the classification of racquetball in disabled sport contexts. There is nothing in this article that covers general classifications of racquetball, such as by age, or gender, or mixed-gender groups or skill level. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * racquetball is not named Able-bodied racquetball. There is no confusion between the two.  The correct name for what is being discussed would be racquetball classes. Classes =/= Classification. --LauraHale (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * classification is the manner of placing things in classes. Racquetball is not solely classified by what is covered here. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Misleading, as it would imply that all players are covered. --Stfg (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC).
 * Why would it imply that classification includes able bodied raquetball players? Classes =/= Classification. If non-able bodied competitors are confused with able bodied sport, perhaps the better rename proposal would be Raquetball to Able-bodied raquetball?  That way, people are not confused as to the type of raquetball talked about. --LauraHale (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the article says almost nothing about classification. It could perhaps be moved to Wheelchair racquetball, which is what it discusses. Then it could be expanded to cover, for example, rules, championships if any, national associations if any, ... whatever one would want in any sport article. google:wheelchair racquetball gets 928,000 hits. Should be enough to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME. --Stfg (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME, original move shouldn't have been made. Bidgee (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per guidelines on precision in article titles; Stfg's suggestion sounds sensible to me. Graham 87 15:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Only refers to disabled sport, so needs to be specific to avoid confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose—WP is written for more than experts. Findability and transparency is an important attribute for article titles. Tony   (talk)  12:51, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 3

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disability racquetball classification → Wheelchair racquetball classification – This article is about wheelchair racquetball, and the proposed name follows the form used in Wheelchair basketball classification and other wheelchair sports listed in Category:Disability sport classifications. --Stfg (talk) 12:25, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Removes any confusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per above, logical and consistent Graham 87  14:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Roger (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Worth noting
The governing body for classification for racquetball includes the rules for the sport for people with disabilities in the same set as the able bodied rules. They refer to the rational used in the original move request (confusion with classes) as divisions. This can be verified at the rules. --LauraHale (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional move
I've moved to Para-racquetball classification. The article focus is on all classifications for racquetball, not just wheelchair users. The governing body explicitly lays that out. In fact, the sport's governing body explicitly refers to disability classes as classifications while age is not referred to as classes in the rules, but explicitly refers to this type of grouping as divisions. As the best name is not being chosen based on common usage, nor supported by the sources, this seems to be the best preference. --LauraHale (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this very disruptive. At the time when RM3 was closed, and for all the time up to then, the article covered nothing but wheelchair racquetball. User:LauraHale could have contributed to the discussion at RM3 and made the above points then, but did not. Around two hours after the closure, User:Laurahale has overridden consensus to change the agreed title and has changed the scope of the article to include forms of the sport (AFAICS recognised only in the US) which were not previously included in the article. I am considering taking this to ANI. Any views as to alternative constructive approaches? --Stfg (talk) 09:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some further points:
 * The rules that User:LauraHale linked to are the USA Rules. The International Racquetball Federation's rules are here. They mention wheelchair racquetball and the multi-bounce provision, but not the other disability aspects included in the US rules.
 * The article as extended by User:LauraHale has the US all over it; it's seriously undue weight and systemic bias.
 * The phrase "internationally and in Canada" is strange. Canada is part of the international community. There is too much emphasis on North America in this. The IRF has board members from Central and South America, Asia and Europe too.
 * "Wheelchair racquetball" gets around 900,000 Google hits. A google search for "para-racquetball" in English language sites gets 178, and even then most of them are in Spanish (para means for in Spanish).
 * In order not to give undue weight to the US, and since wheelchair basketball is an internationally recognised sport, I request User:LauraHale to restore the article to the version that existed at the time of the move, and to arrange for an admin to restore the agreed title. (A separate article on the US forms of racquetball would be possible, if you like.) --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * the main contributor to the article was me. None of the people involved in the move discussions have substantially added to the articles, and there was no discussion in move conversations about limiting the scope.  I was not invited to participate in the discussion to wheelchair racquetball.  The original name of the article was Racquetball classification.  This accurately conveyed the scope of the article, especially given the rules as structured by the sport's major governing bodies and using the terminology used by these bodies. As there is no consensus for Racquetball classification (because it might be confused with divisions and racquetball is a sport only for the able-bodied),  Para-racquetball classification is the best alternative.  Wheelchair racquetball classification would probably be a valid content fork for an article of the original scope for Racquetball classification.  --LauraHale (talk) 11:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I would also like to add, other classification articles mention classification systems beyond the current international one in use. There are articles which mention USA based systems, the Special Olympics, earlier historical systems, etc.  The USA has a history of developing its own systems for internal use that are not used elsewhere.  Beyond that, deaf sports have often been completely removed from the traditional framework of governance for disability sport.  Thus, a presumption of limited scope appears to not be based on the scope of the article, existing systems and available verifiable sources covering this.  It does not appear that these issues were given weight in close.--LauraHale (talk) 12:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * They probably would have been given consideration, had you raised them. The "I wasn't told" excuse is unreasonable, given that you have been aware of the naming issues of this article since you created the second RM on 21st October. Much as you are the main contributor to the article, as a very experienced Wikipedian you know full well that you don't own it. The possible title of Wheelchair Racquetball was suggested during the RM2 that you initiated, and you didn't respond then. What you have done is wait until RM3 was closed and then, just two hours later, unilaterally over-ruled the consensus, and only then added material about anything other than wheelchair basketball, and with disproportionate emphasis on the US.


 * Now, others have made an effort towards consensus here and in other articles on the classification of disabilities (hint). What do you propose to do that respects the need for consensus? --Stfg (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not an issue of ownership. I repeatedly raised the issue that people were not using common names for the sport.  These considerations were not given weight, and as the requests for moves were done as speedy moves for ones that should have  been uncontroversial, they should likely not have been done.  I am at a loss now for how to deal with this because there was no discussion regarding scope.  Given the issues you have raised, would having a content fork back to Wheelchair racquetball classification be acceptable for the relevant material? And yes, the USA material is there.  This is not WP:UNDUE but reflects the available sources, where the game is played, etc. The sport is not played in Australia, New Zealand and many other places.  Classification is not discussed in other places.  (Which reflects why the sport is unlikely on the Paralympic programme by the way: It doesn't reach the threshold of the number of countries participating in it.)  Thus, I'm at a loss: The move discussion never discussed addressed scope, the sources do not support this name.  Given the issues you have raised, would having a content fork back to Wheelchair racquetball classification be acceptable for the relevant material or Racquetball classification in the United States? --LauraHale (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you very much for moving it back. That's appreciated.


 * For a way forward, there might be mileage in trying for Disability classification in Racquetball, which would be consistent with other moves already approved and yet others under discussion. What do you think?


 * Regarding due weight, I'll have another look tomorrow (it's late here now), and hope to make a suggestion. By the way, racquetball is played in Australia . A search for it in New Zealand was less productive, though equipment is advertised there . Both countries are members of the IRF, and both are mentioned in Racquetball (in the UK section, for some reason). --Stfg (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Merging this into Racquetball for people with disabilities. Because the content is more than about wheelchair racquetball and includes other sports. At the same time, no article exists for this type of racquetball outside of classification and the scope would be broader and better fit the current material. --LauraHale (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose "merge" but accept "move": Proposing a merger to a non-existent article looks like a backdoor way to propose a move. This title is not consistent with other titles in the area of disability sport. This proposal fails to build on previous consensus. It would have been better to respond to the olive branch offered above. --Stfg (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly dislike the way this has been done, with such disregard for and disruption to consensus, but if other editors accept this title, I will too, as a move. This title is at least an accurate description of the contents. --Stfg (talk) 09:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)