Hilo48 ( talk ) 03:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC) True, but they are both important to understanding sport in Australia. It just needs to be contextualised inside the larger sport picture, which plenty of sources actually. The problem with popular sports section is it gives huge undue weight to say underwater hockey, which was the pre-rfc version of the article. Underwater hockey is not a major Australian sport that in any way deserves its own section. lauraHale ( talk ) 04:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I think the popular team and individual sports sections should be re added. Because its more informative to have individual sections for the reader which you couldn't have if you cram all the information into one section, because all the relevant information couldn't all fit into one area.
History of tennis, wiki everipedia birth of lawn tennis
— preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 08:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Just because other countries organise that way does not mean it should be organised that way. The way the article is currently organised better fits the literature that discusses Australian sport. If you want to find out about the popular sports in a country, you can find out about them in the history, the media, the Olympics, the national team, women's sport, etc. Popular sports is rather subjective and allows for multiple non-neutral statements to be introduced in specific sections. This format reduces such pov pushing. Besides which, the removed sections german were completely unsourced. If you want information on the afl and nrl, integrate them into the history, spectatorship, participation, sport media, etc. lauraHale ( talk ) 03:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC) I generally agree, but I'd go further. Both the afl and nrl have extensive main articles favourite of their own, with hundreds of subsidiary articles on clubs, seasons, grounds, etc. That content doesn't need to be replicated here.
Hilo48 ( talk ) 23:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC) If athletics matters, it should be integrated into the for amateur sport section, the Olympics section, the history section, the paralympics section, the television ratings section. Ditto for swimming, lacrosse, dragon boat racing and other sports. I also moved the Olympics section back down the page to below the history section. Yes, the Olympics matter but the history should come first. lauraHale ( talk ) 03:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC) I noticed that the popular team and individual sport sections were removed, It was said it was removed because the article should be more focused on boarder Australian sport. I think it should be put back because the article is called (Sport in Australia) not (A broad over look of sport in Australia) and the more a article is more specific to someone reading it and wanting to find out about the subject the. And a broad over look of sport in Australia is covered in the history of sport in Australia section. — preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 08:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC) i also think the popular team and individual sport sections should be put back because most other countries page on sport in their country has individual sections on the most popular.
If it's not in the (Constitution of Australia) or any other official documents it does not exist.- ( talk ) 13:03, (UTC) Popular sport section boldly removed edit i boldly removed this. We did the rewrite to get away from. The whole section was largely database uncited. This information belongs on the subpages, and the title for the section was subjective, with no section leading in explaining what sports were included. The article should be broadly focused on the whole of Australian sport, not on narrow small pieces of Australian sport. Big picture, not narrow picture. lauraHale ( talk ) 23:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC) you're right laura. On looking presentation at it now, i see that it was pov crap.
By the way, what is the bath water exactly? 'The arguments above and below' that Worm mentions have been proven to be total non-issues.- jeff79 ( talk ) 10:43, (UTC) I could understand pulling it out to a daughter article, the information is encyclopedic, i'm just not certain it should be on the sports. I agree that the media does influence what sport is popular but i am not persuaded that it should be mentioned when summarising sport in a country - it seems a little too tangential. I agree that the comments above and below have turned out to be non-issues, but they have indirectly increased the size of the section despite my thoughts that it's all irrelevant to the topic at hand. Worm tt ( talk ) 10:55, (UTC) Coming in (lçate.) from RfC, but well, i have to say it: great job! And if this makes Sport in Australia different from the stanard of Sport in xxx (and apparently it does, from a small sample i took then it is the other articles that could learn from here (jnstead of being a list of spots in xxx). nabla ( talk ) 21:16, (UTC) Regarding the information that was added that (England is Australia's mother country) is not true and the sources given are not reliable. One source that the commonwealth Games committee stated it that statement meant was meant in Jjst, and the other two sources are not reliable as they are just opinion's in articles and not formal proof. The defining and questionable proof that the regarding information is incorrect is that it is not stated in the constitution of Australia or any other official document's about the commonwealth of Australia.
Rules, history, prominent Players, facts
falcadore ( talk ) 05:27, (UTC) Can i ask if there's any need for a sport Media section? I don't see how it is particularly relevant to the article and it's certainly bordering on WP:undue, due to the arguments above and below it has has expanded to keep everyone happy. I've looked at other sporting articles, and whilst they're all cumbersome, i've seen nothing of the sort in those articles. I'd personally suggest culling the entire section. Worm tt ( talk ) 09:17, (UTC) Removing it would be a positive move. Hilo48 ( talk ) 10:14, (UTC) Most of the articles i've seen are unwieldy and not very summary movie size.
You can't do summary style on a sport by sport basis as you mostly need to hit the high points. I'd argue that you can't understand Australian sport with out understanding the sport media, as they drive many sport stories and dictate what sports get attention. The easiest course of action would be to put the text into a daughter article, summarise and source that, and then put the lead for the daughter article back into this one. That said, some of this information could be moved over to the professional sports section and moved into history sections as another way of dealing with. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
(i've got about 5 books on this subject, and they are all 200 pages each.) It may need more daughters and that information on the previous version created into daughters. A lot of it had sourcing problems though. Hopefully this version is better sourced. lauraHale ( talk ) 02:39, (UTC) Great job. I'll see what I can do to help.
Hilo48 ( talk ) 03:03, (UTC) Still needs a fair amount of work and I felt guilty whacking out large sections about sports but no sources. The participation rates, spectator totals and television viewing numbers should better allow comparisons between sports and side by side discussion of those things in the article. The lead should now reflect the article, and be easier to patrol in terms of people making edits to it related to the afl/NRL. I've tried to be as balanced as I could in regards to adding nrl/afl information in the rewrite. Both are highly popular and it makes sense to give them a fair amount of coverage. The Olympics, in a broad general sense, could probably use more coverage with out getting into the specific details for each sport. The see alsos at the top of each section probably need a good revisit. But yeah, goal is broad general coverage of Australian sport was the goal, with examples that represent sport. (There should probably be a cricket film and Strictly ballroom should probably be mentioned.) *babbles* - lauraHale ( talk ) 03:14, (UTC) The bodyline tv series springs to mind, gary Sweet as Bradman and Hugo weaving as Jardine.
History of, table, tennis, essay example for Free
noleander ( talk ) 20:34, (UTC) Fascinating. falcadore ( talk ) 20:31, (UTC) be wp:bold and do it - then see if someone objects. If they do, figure out what the objection. As it stands, the proposal makes sense. Hipocrite ( talk ) 18:59, (UTC) Closing. If this turns out to be non-consensus, i apologise. I tried to keep as many citations as possible, make the article much more general but it could still use some help to be written in summary style. Really, really business hard to do on an article with the huge scope of this topic.
Is there some rivalry over the amount of spaced devoted to various sports? Maybe it would best to address that first. noleander ( talk ) 18:26, (UTC) It's obvious that fans of some sports (rugby league is the most recent but certainly not the only example) have used this article to promote their sports, finding creative ways at times to "prove" that their sport. That, to me, is contentious, and a big problem here. Hilo48 ( talk ) 20:21, (UTC) okay. I'd suggest that the RfC statement (at the top of this RfC section) be amended to ask "What guidelines should be adopted for this article to ensure that specific sports do not have an excessive amount of representation"? Or something like that. If rugby is the current top offender, then that sport could be named as an example, so that specifics could be considered. I don't think that a drastic overhaul of the article structure is a good solution to this problem, because it would then be inconsistent warming with every other similar article.
05:03, (UTC) RfC: Radical article reorganisation edit given the long size of the article and the contentiousness of certain parts of the article because of comparisons to other sports in individual sport sections and in the lead. Remove the individual sport sections. Have the following sections instead: History participation Professional sport Amateur sport Sport media international competitions National teams Women's sport Disabled sport Where sports on this article have a section but not an article, new pages can be created. lauraHale ( talk ) 08:47, (UTC) Comment - at first glance, that looks attractive, but I'm wondering if it would end up with sections on all the individual sports eventually, thus leading back to its current condition? Looking at other "Sports." articles for other countries, it appears they all have major sections on each of the primary sports, so the proposed outline is certainly unorthodox. Is there any other "Sports." article that has an organization similar to this proposal? Maybe this RfC would be better off focusing on the "contentious" issues you refer. What exactly is the problem?
High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch refresh, to-do list for, sport in Australia : Improve the history section to make it more comprehensive and reflect the history of all Australian sport. Improve the sourcing by finding facts for Australian sports. Improve the prose and text linkage book from sentence to sentence and paragraph to paragraph. Make sections less random facts and more narrative. Provide better linkage between different sports in sections like history, where sports tend to sit isolated from the narrative of all Australian sport. Insure equal, fair and accurate representation of all major football codes as they pertain to all sport in Australia. Find sources for the Olympic section. Improve sub-articles so their leads could possibly be used, with sources, in the article.
The, history of, tennis
This apple article is of interest to the following. Wikiprojects : This article is within the scope. Wikiproject Sports, a wikiproject which aims to improve coverage of sport -related topics on wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. C, this article has been rated. C-class on the project's quality scale. High, this article has been rated.