Jump to content

Talk:Disability sport classification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal

[edit]

There is a huge overlap of content, and there's no question to my mind that these articles ought to be merged in some manner. I'm proposing to make a logical merger that groups together the largest amount of common content. I currently have no view as to to merging them into 1, 3 or n articles, but I'm confident to find consensus to merge them into a number of articles that is significantly inferior to 200. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As proposer, please create the article to give a better idea as to what this combined article would look like. Also, these classifications are not all classifications of the International Paralympic Committee. The classifications are over seen by other governing bodies. --LauraHale (talk) 04:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We're talking over 100 different classifications, with their own individual medals, their own world records, their own requirements for it and encompasses over 20 different sports. You cannot merge these with out losing a lot of meaning or having a super long article. --LauraHale (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Proposed structure: Rename this article to "Disability sport classification" because the sports here are not related to the IPC. Then a daughter article for each sport. Then the grand-daughters with the existing articles. The current "grand daughter" level articles meet notability guidelines. They need improvement, yes, and that will happen over time. We don't merge generally because articles are not yet ready. If the proposer is serious about the merge, they need to figure out how to do with 200 plus individual anchors that would be required inside one article. --LauraHale (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, it would be helpful to have a master article about Player classifications in disability sport, to explain the overall philosophy and structure of the classifications and discuss the history of the 2003 attempt to address "the overall objective to support and co-ordinate the ongoing development of accurate, reliable, consistent and credible sport focused classification systems and their implementation." --Orlady (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the topics are separately notable, with huge potential for expansion.  Chzz  ►  09:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - per Chzz; each topic clearly independently notable. Nothing wrong with having a tiered-set of articles, e.g. a top level article, a middle-level set of articles-by-sport, and an individual article for each classification. There is massive room for expansion in the classification-level articles, in particular. Attempting to lump them all together results in an unweildy conglomerate mass for no particular benefit. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - A single article covering all the disability classifications is too unwieldy. That said, the current arrangement has far too many almost identical articles and is also extremely unwieldy. IMO, the suggestion made by Orlady is the way to move forward. PeterJeremy (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the articles have a fair amount of duplicate content at the moment does not mean these articles cannot stand on their own. There is a whole lot of potential content for each article where the classification has its own medal events in the Olympics, has its own records, etc. It just isn't there yet, not that it won't ever be there. --LauraHale (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede & Article

[edit]

The lede says this is IPC classification, but many of the classifications on this page say they are not IPC classifications, further several section say that the sport is not classified by the IPC... Does that mean there are no classifications, or that the IPC does not do it but someone else does, or that during IPC events these are not divided by class? As there are classes that are not IPC classifications, the lede is wrong in stating that these are IPC classes, or the article is wrong in stating that some of the classes are not IPC classes. I presume that the IPC is not the only purveyors of classification, so shouldn't the IPC have a separate article? -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State of the article during the 2012 Paralympics

[edit]

At the moment, it's a mess. As the heading here says, it's a list, but it's not even a useful list and this is particularly unfortunate given what's happening at the moment.

Many of the list items are of the cut and paste form: 'Buckley describes the field competitors in this classification as "CP5, see CP-ISRA Classes (appendix) Ambulatory"' rather than saying what the categories are. All of these are based on a single source, the sportingwheelies.org.au site, which no longer seems to contain the referred to content. (The link in the references section is certainly broken.)

The archery section says that "Not all classifications compete at the Paralympic Games", yet all three classifications in the section say "This classification competes at the Paralympic Games". Is this an error or are there other classifications?

Several other sections just say whether or not the IPC decides the classifications. Either way, no other detail is given.

And, while I acknowledge the work done by an American Australian editor on the article, is it really notable which Australian athlete, if any, is in any particular classification? Especially with phrasing like "There is only Australian athletics competitors in this class"? Presumably, that was supposed to be "There is only one Australian athletics competitor in this class" rather than "Only Australian athletes compete in this class" but is that really the case? The person named may be the only Australian competitor of a particular standard, but are they really the only Australian person in the sport category?

Overall, it feels like most of the the article would be best replaced by a link to the IPC site: paralympic.org/Classification/Introduction and other pages in that area. Lovingboth (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useful material in my sandbox

[edit]

I have a fairly large amount of possibly useful material in my sandbox - User:Dodger67/Sandbox/Paralympic classification. If anyone wishes to use it in this and/or other relevant articles, you're welcome to do so. Roger (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused - what is APC?

[edit]

The article indicates that the IPC sets the classification but then goes on to talk about the APC but does not have a link or definition of APC. It cannot be a typo as it occurs in several places. Keith D (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Paralympic Committee. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - needs article changing to cover this and why just Australia? Keith D (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It seems that Australians are more interested in sport than other nationalities. We still have a long way to go, though, before all the articles are up to scratch. We rushed through the articles on classification in time for the 2012 Summer Paralympics, and they have been consulted by hundred of thousands of readers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 & Keith D, besides interest in sport, sport is a relatively high national policy priority in Australia, and Australia's Olympic & Paralympic performance is far above average on a per capita basis. E.g. at Tokyo 2020 Australia was 6th on the Olympic medal tally and is (currently) 8th on the Paralympic medal tally, whereas Australia has the world's 55th largest population (and ~13th largest economy, by GDP). —DIV (49.181.101.103 (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Bold rewrite

[edit]

I will be doing a bold rewrite of this article that I have been drafting on my user space at User:LauraHale/Disability sports classification rewrite. This is because the article does not follow the standard format of discussing this topic as used by the literature. At the same time, the single sport specific nature of each section makes it difficult to understand the intersections and many of the similarities that occur. An approach that uses a unified history, that compares sports, that recognizes the different disability types involved in disability sport makes this much more easier to understand. Also, this is probably the best place to discuss in depth the classification process. This is pretty universal. Not doing it here often means a lot more information is required in sub articles. While the version I will be saving isn't complete, I think it does a much better job at covering the topic and will be easier to integrate information without being hugely repetitive. --LauraHale (talk) 08:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Disability sport classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Disability sport classification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising

[edit]

Is there any particular reason the individual classification articles under Category:Disability sport classifications reside in only that category, and not also in the category of the sport they relate to? If there isn't then I'll go through them when I have some time. Nzd (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nzd I've started the process by fixing the para-cycling classification pages. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disability type for CP6/7/8 classified sportspeople

[edit]

I don't understand the distinction between green and blue in the illustrations for "Disability type for CP6/7/8 classified sportspeople". The legend has identical entries for both colours, so what's the distinction? —DIV (49.181.101.103 (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disability_sport_classification&oldid=1206981300"