Jump to content

Talk:Australian handball/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Miscellaneous

It appears that this page has been written off the top of the authour's head. If people out there can find sources that provide some of the information on this topic, this article would be well on the way to FA status. Bensmith53 08:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good article. I have formatted it to be easire to read. Whoever wrote this is talented. I am going apply for this article to be rated.

talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 04:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

--- Some points from me Hectic18 07:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC):

  • Ace, King, Queen and Jack is what's stipulated in this article, but having played handball from K-12 with people from many schools in the south west sydney/central sydney region, I've played the square order as King, Queen, Jack and "Duns". Anyone else here who has played with the square known like this?
  • If more than one player calls "service" at the same time, the "Ace" may serve to whomever he wishes. The "Ace" always serves at the start of play. - For me, the serve goes to whoever calls first. If not, the ace may serve to whoever.
  • drags- known as a 'slog' for me
  • I could go on for ages, but esssentially the point I am trying to make is that there are heaps of variations to the game, partly due to the fact that I believe that the rules aren't typically written down, just passed on by word-of-mouth at school. I have also played a variation of handball where "footers", "headers" and "chesties" are allowed lol!!. What do think about these variations and how they can be implemented into this article?
  • Yep, at my Primary school we used Dunce... and Sharkey ball is called WarBall in my high school.
  • I grew up in the Riverina in the 80's, moving across to the Snowy's in the early 90's - I remember handball well. In both places it was essentially as described here - I suspect every school and every generation / class has it's own house rules though. I also suspect that there has never ever been ANY sort of actual writing or study done on this topic, yet it is a topic that certainly over half of anyone going though the Australian school system in the last 50 years could verify. How can we make sure that a) this doesn't get deleted due to original research and no sources and b) get it through some sort of rigorous Wiki process to eventually get it to FA without sources. Hell - maybe though combined work we could get the game officially recognised somehow. That would be a first for Wikipedia no doubt.Akitora (talk) 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Akitora, in times past, the wall version [See section below Wall Game in article] has had official recognition by a Victorian government sports authority, and Denis Towers promoted it running competitions at various schools - though never 'inter-school'. Between about the 50s and early 90's, the wall version was played by nearly all young guys at some stage. But the education dept decided to modernize schools and paths appeared with garden beds against the walls of the schools. Nevertheless, the current court version has also usually had a healthy presence well. Currently my son and I play it and he is best in his school. In the 1980's we started an association and commenced singles and doubles championships, but I'd suggest it would be better to just start 2 or 3 very small clubs, play weekly and go from there, as in most other sports. It was very hard building it the way we went! (124.179.214.158 (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 Move rejected. We don't coin terms. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Change name to Australasian Handball since it is played in Australia and New Zealand. F (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting motive. However, is there any evidence that this term is actually used? Otherwise, it's original research which is not appropriate. — AjaxSmack 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I know this game as kingpin. Four-square was a variation of it. The rules I knew in the 60s when I was in primary school (in Australia) were not quite the same as those listed here. Suspect the whole article has a WP:OR problem, and don't want to make it worse. Hmmm... Andrewa (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

The opening paragraph states that the game is related to Chinese Handball, a variant of American Handball. There is no evidence to support this as far as I can see. Chinese handball has only been around since the 60s and uses a wall. Australian Handball doesn't require a wall and doesn't appear to have anything much in common. Can anyone comment please? Is there a relationship between the two? --Bardcom (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

--There is no conclusive evidence which points that it was a derivation of Chinese Handball, there are numerous similarities within the games which point to this being the case. The game as it is today is quite far from Chinese Handball as it was appropriately adapted to the suit the individual needs of the athletes as the schoolyards changed and no longer allowed for sufficient playing area. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Handball#Australian_variation --Handmedown (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

AGREE totally with Bardcom & Handmedown: Personally, I have been involved with one or another version of this activity since about 1962. I have seen versions since as early as the 1950's. Of all the proposals for change or 'complaint' made by the various people [above], this one claiming that the Australian game, or that the four-square game (which is played worldwide almost), were outcomes or variations from China or America is certainly the one showing greatest merits re a case for genuine 'Alteration'/removal from the current text - even with respect to the wall game as well.

We can only assume the original author, or an earlier Chinese editor, saw it as similar to his/her own background experience and basically, made assumption in the writing. As a physical educator, my research has indicated that because of its simplicity and young people's instincts to play this type of simple game, it becomes a natural outgrowth of various cultures worldwide. May I further assure that Australia has not in the past, been in the habit of importing oriental sports and employing them as its own popular product. Most local, common games in most countries derive from the very local cultures and practices of their people, This has probably expecially been so in the Australian case, where the country is so physically isolated from adjacent children's cultural influence - certainly back in the 1950's, which is when the game was known to be popularly played here off the wall. I knew the wall game to be popular here in the 1960's virtually all the way around Australia.

I think the Chinese inference should be removed.

While I have my hands on this thread, may I say to those other commenters, who expressed concern that terms they used were different from those entered by the author of this article: If you really feel keen to include another expression that you used to use in playing 'downball'/handball, just include it in parentheses behind the author's term. Obviously, we don't want about 10 terms thrown in everywhere, making the article unreadable and possibly discredited as well, but for some terms, it is to be expected that one or 2 extra variations in terms exist, but mean the same thing. This happens in every field. So if you think it should be included, just use some editorial method to include it. (121.220.27.246 (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC))

Notice: Before editing this article

All information within the article must be sourced. The page has previously undergone an article for deletion review, and so proving notability and sourcing all information with reliable sources is of top priority. When writing a "Description of the Rules" section, do not specify any rules, as common consensus between regions has not been reached. If you wish to write a section of this title or similar, please take a broad real-world perspective and state that there is a large difference between the game rules based on region. This is all because the game has no governing and no definite set of rules. In conclusion, all edits that do not follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines will be reverted. Thanks, Alex Douglas (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that the section I entered re the sports history of the game has been deleted. In particular this was with reference to the establishment of the Victorian Downball Association, which ran through most of the 1980's; yet these contents, which I entered, were referenced at the 'foot': reference [11] - per the Records book, 1988 edition, of the Victorian Veeball-Downball Association, available for personal perusal. It must also be recognized that very little in the way of authored books, etc were actually written on this type of topic in previous years. Yet the game has been spectacularly alive and well for generations. It is known to have existed here in Victoria for at least 55 years - and probably before. Young people cannot pretend they are the only ones who have existed on earth, if you at all, want Wikipedia to display credible information, because most of Australia knows that this game has existed for generations. ALL generations play these types of activities. Now the Victorian association, of which I was a part, was formally acknowledged and aided, in fact, by the Victorian State Government's 'Life. Be In It' programme. This programme was an initiative of famous, ex-Melbourne Footballer, Brian Dixon, who was also a state parliamentarian at the time. In fact, I recently received communication from his office as we managed to formally thank him, now having his contact, for the assistance of the programme not so long ago; as we had not previously had opportunity to do so. So, this can all be officially verified via Brian Dixon's state office. Further, there were local paper articles over those years on our association, but precise papers have been lost on this at present. Also the results of tournaments run by the association were rung through Saturday evening, on media's "Sportsline" at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidowi (talk • contribs) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC) (Denidowi (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
Further to the above:
The article itself cites Dr Lloyd Gunatilake as being head, or co-ordinator of the Senior Mathematics Department at Melbourne's prestigious, Melbourne High School. He has agreed to verify the information found in this article as it relates to the said association, should this require further verification.(Denidowi (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC))
Thank you very much for explaining this to me. However, sourcing the "record books" for the former Victorian Wall Downball Association is unacceptable. If you could source the information present from local paper articles, particularly the Victorian State Government's 'Life. Be in it.' programme and its screening on "Sportsline" then the association would be notable enough to include a short section on this under "Domestic competitions". Perhaps, WikiNews can arrange an interview with Brian Dixon, because he is notable, and discuss the former Victorian Wall Downball Association, particularly the Victorian State Government's 'Life. Be In It' programme and its screening on "Sportsline". I have removed the current section from the article, because it is not encyclopedic, in it's writing style. I do not believe WikiNews would be interested in interviewing Lloyd Gunatilake however, as he is not notable enough to warrant an article, and as such may not be considered a reliable source. So, the next step is to find those references from articles in local papers, footage or an article about Australian handball or the former Victorian Wall Downball Association on "Sportsline" and information on these subject with regard to the Victorian State Government's 'Life. Be in it.'. After this, we can begin a re-write of the section, this time named "Domestic competition(s)" without using people's names, when they are not notable enough to warrant an article. Thank you, I hope we can work this out. Alex Douglas (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, to be absolutely honest with you, I am not happy at all that you deem yourself the authority over this page at all. There have been many who have written quite usefully on this topic that you have taken it upon yourself, after their hours of investment, to remove their much more accurate and informative material than what you have left on here. As for encyclopaedic writing styles, I deem your use of language, particularly of this form, considerably lesser than my own. As I said re 'Sportsline', we simply called through the results, which was the practice of all regularly constituted bodies of the time. So I doubt that you would find record of these occurrences almost 25 years later. WE rang through on public phone in those days. As for the Life. Be In It programme, it ran a simple spiel and free advertisement in its 'What's On' magazine near end of 1982. That was the only time it brecame involved. But the 'Sun'newspaper advertised the event; it was also on radio pne Saturday morning {I cannot remember which station). As for notoriety, these people that you say were not notable were only not notable to your own experience and sources. Among Victoria's handball players, some of these players were almost idolized. Amongst schools (meaning principals, etc), Denis Towers was very well known, for instance for his promotions of the game - mostly at his own expense. I know as former secretary. As for Lloyd not being notable - again, only because of your own limited knowledge, but why should you have authority anyway. Dr Lloyd Gunatilake could probably be considered the foremost teacher of VCE mathematics in Victoria. Many fellow tutors send their hardcases to him for personal tutoring. He is also the author of a number of VCE Mathematics texts, widely used in this state. This type of treatment by yourself, makes one wonder on your agenda. If we have further trouble with you, I'm going to have to report you. As for the articles in the local news, I am at present, endeavouring to source them out, but it is quite a job, because few people remember dates of local newspapers 25 years on. I am working on it though. But we may not be successful; we can only try. (121.220.27.246 (talk) 09:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC))
I do not claim to have authority over this page, I simply want to uphold Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines in order to create a verifiable and sourced encyclopedic article. The quite useful edits of others are not accurate and informative material, and even if they were, all edits must be free from original research. As for my use of language, I am not a writer. If you cannot reference 'Sportsline' then you cannot use this in your edits to the article. If you do not have access to the 'What's On' magazine when the Life. Be In It programme advertised Australian handball or the Victorian Downball Association within it then you cannot use this in your edits to the article. Please find the Sun newspaper advertisement, then we can re-write and properly source the article. If you cannot even remember the radio station on which the Australian handball or the Victorian Downball Association was discussed on then it cannot be used to source any edits, and thus all reference to the above topics are cannot be placed into the article. In regard to your comment "As for notoriety, these people that you say were not notable were only not notable to your own experience and sources." This is very untrue, I have no personal agenda, they are not notable, in accordance to Wikipedia's notability guidelines on people. If you claim these people are notable, please make sure the individual meets the Wikipedia's notability guidelines on people and make sure that your article is verifiable and contains published sources, and then head over to Wikipedia's articles for creation process. It would be a great contribution to Wikipedia, to have some new verifiable articles. Dr Lloyd Gunatilake may infact be notable, but you will have to find published sources that reference this. As I have said before, I have no personal agenda, I am merely trying to uphold Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. In regard to "If we have further trouble with you, I'm going to have to report you" ... who is "we"? ... and if you are going to report me, please see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and make sure that my edits are considered vandalism, that I have been given sufficient recent warnings to stop and that unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent. I strongly doubt, that I am vandalising this article, merely upholding Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. I understand that it may be a job to find and remember the dates of local newspapers from twenty five years ago, but if you can find these articles, then it would be appropriate to include a section called "Domestic competitions" and within it cover the "Victorian Downball Association" to an extent. Good luck in finding those sources. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, Alex, if you're truly concerned for the accuracy of Wikipedia - that is, accuracy over 'formality' - then let me simply clear you on the huge inaccuracy or misrepresentation of the reality that you currently bear with the article as you have currently entered it. Let’s just show for instance, just how “unrepresentative”, claiming your ploy of using some published source only – that is, that seems available only to your own extremely limited knowledge among the many millions who have played this game over the past 50 or 60 years, in just Australia alone, and most of whom would fveruify otherwise on most of what you have so far, written. Let’s look at your article for genuine accuracy. In fact, let's just take the very opening claim as example of the imposing inaccuracy of this article: “Australian handball, known in Australia simply as handball”. [Very opening sentence] Who cares what individual’s website or cheap magazine you might have seen this claim in, it is wrong. There is no formal game called, ‘handball’ here – at least, not in the form as you’ve cited the activity throughout your article. In actual fact, there IS a genuine ‘handball’ game in Australia. Most of its active players used to hail from Catholic schools. If you are from Australia, all you would have to do to verify this would be to walk through 2 or 3 old boys Catholic schools: you will see walls, usually with 2 sidewalls as well, which were obviously, at some stage, some kind of playing court. Australian handball was played on those courts – even post school ‘leagues’. The game had a regularly constituted body. In 1985, in fact, our association invited players within their leagues to compete in the Victorian Downball Championships. Our invitation was extended through the active, national secretary of the Australian Handball Association, who happened to reside in Victoria. They entered some 8 or 9 competitors – which included players from their A grade and B grades, plus some juniors. Because the association seems less active today, however, some individuals have simply taken it upon themselves to claim that their particular version of the downball game might assume the name “handball”; I don’t know that anyone has been so presumptive but the writer of this article, as to name it, “Australian Handball”. What you often see or read in some obscure article is often further from the truth than the claims of kids off the street. Generations of people, worldwide, have played the types of game you and I describe in this article; over 50 years or so there would be 10’s of millions of young people – or more! What one person wrote to make a quick buck means absolutely ZERO! It’s highly inaccurate; and my claims are quite verifiable, if you are prepared to go to the right source to search them. If you would care, for instance, to go to: http://www.handballaustralia.com.au/about.php?table=about_us&id=2 you might just learn, super quickly, just how little trust one can place in writing for money – when all a researcher does is simply a couple of hours research before commencing their script!! How do I know?? I have undertaken writer’s courses! (Denidowi (talk) 08:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Alex, I hope you're still with us and not still reeling from the last blow re the significant limitation, and therefore, the inaccuracy caused by your own restrictions into public matters - which this type of ball game is. So, let’s look at Your claim #2: “handball[2], is a ball game played on a rectangular court divided into quadrents” Well, again … very exclusive, or restrictive, definition; don’t you think – seeing that most of Australia is quite aware that handball games have had many variations over many decades. My son and I play, most days: '2 square', between us. His friends come over: we all play 2 square – singles, and sometimes in doubles, also. Further, there are still elements that exist 'out there' where the game is played off the wall – and then there are the various other mixtures, or variations on the game. We see kids at Church playing over 6 squares, even 8. Further, your own citation [3] does not support your own restrictive style – which seems to be your personal weakness, all along. I quote, re the 5 most popular school games you quoted: “Handball - ither played against a wall (for two players) or in 4 squares (4 players). Bounce the ball to the wall or to one of the 4 squares and back again. Use points for the wall and for 4 squares players shift from King, Queen, Jack and Joker.” ... doesn't seem to be just a game for quadrants only here!? (Denidowi (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

While we’re so close now, why don’t we simply look at the very misleading representation concerning the huge picture caused by the next restrictive claim - caused by the restrictive nature of using el-cheapo sources because there isn't anything good elsewhere, when speaking of such public matters, as these games are open to: Let’s look at claim #3: "The Department of Education and Children's Services has cited Australian handball as a method of fostering social competencies in young children.[1]" Again, how unrepresentative of the reality can one be in entering this on the game??! Remember, this is only your 2nd sentence, re this whole topic. Surely, amongst all that could be said by educationalists, this was a mere passing comment in some boardroom meeting. I have sat through them myself. The fact that the game plays in schools and parks and streets around Australia and has done for millions of people over many decades has nothing to do with some comment made on one occasion by a department employee! If it was so influential an ‘initiative’ as alluded to by its mere entry here, did we then see the view being formalized throughout educational circles in Australia? No; of course, we didn’t. Again your severely restrictive and unrepresentative style (“Oh … we must use quotes, you know! Only quotes. Yes; Santa is included. As long as we quote.”) has forced you to make king mountains out of totally insignificant molehills. Basically, no bearing whatsoever on the nature of the sport you are supposedly describing. (Denidowi (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Why not look at your very next thought to escape your keyboard, and see if things are improving at all?? “The game is a schoolyard craze that predates 1999”. Gee … we ARE official; aren’t we??! It’s not even in good Wikipedian style. Seeing there are guys going through Univ. in their 1st degrees who would merely cackle on this one, I don’t think anything at all needs be said. No. Things certainly are Not improving. Significant Understatement leads to ‘Misleading’. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidowi (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC) (Denidowi (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Immediate next words: in fact, it seems that not one word, so far, in the entire article [Is there one?] has contributed anything at all that is in any real shape, “Accurate”. Virtually every single claim you make, by using these uninformed and highly minimal sources, or websites, seems to be grossly misrepresentative of reality! Next one: “… with its schoolyard popularity at peak during fine weather conditions”: Again, do we laugh?? I mean, you only make about 5 sentences in your entire heavily informative and super-accurate article on this subject, and we get this Revelation amongst it all! (Denidowi (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Next statement: “Several schools have constructed courts, for the purpose of allowing students to play Australian handball” Well, as my Dad might have said, “Turn it up! Something that is actually correct amongst it all, and probably not over-exaggerated or misrepresentative”, like all previous claims. Perhaps, with some luck, the rest might be likewise … let’s see. (Denidowi (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Next claim: “Whereas, other schools have banned students from playing the game” Yes; I have seen some article to this effect. I am wondering, though, just how representative it really is amongst all of what is happening, generally, in schools; or did the researcher simply pick up something on one or two cases, and decide he/she would publish an article?? I mean, unless there is some trend, what 2 schools might be doing amongst 1000’s in Australia just might not be worth the mention, except in some local paper, or something. Either way, as you have merely entered a handful of sentences on this topic in sum total, I am left wondering just how appropriate to include it on an encyclopaedic article? It could be just a passing whim of a few; it is all very new. I mean, again, it smacks heavily of not really having anything of substance to add to an already poorly article. (Denidowi (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Try your last claim: Let’s try your very last claim: “The game has recently been played on a rubber surface.[8]” Well … you tell me: How representative, when only writing a few sentences total, is this?? There are 1000’s of schools in Australia alone. So one laid down some rubber…?? You see, this game has been played by many – probably 100’s – of millions worldwide. It (or forms of it) is probably the most popular game on earth among young people over some generations now. It is not even an Australian game! There are 1000’s of schools in Australia alone. Certainly, as we researched unofficially some 30 years ago, the wall game probably was then. Because you are restricted to so extremely few, money-spinning articles, you have forced yourself into this sludge of meaningless, grossly misrepresentative material that is actually better used, in paper form, to clean up the cat’s dung, not on Wikipedia on this topic. It is, effectively, false. Your claims would be better not on. Some subjects in life are simply better represented by 'the lay public'. Because so very little has been written by credibles on it, and because of the worldwide enormous involvement in it and the hugely, open public scope of this subject, it is one of those fields where limitation to 'published' writings only merely serves to embarrass the topic and the reader.(Denidowi (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)) (Denidowi (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

Instead of pointing out the flaws in my sourced version - source your version. If you can't find sources and properly reference your findings into the article, do not create an article based on original research, whether you or one thousand others believe that it's true. Please spend more time reading Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines and less time creating unsourced and original research-based articles and pointing out the flaws in my sourced version. You are welcome by all means to add the present version of the article with sourced information, and even change my writing, if it is not backed up by sources or is grammatically incorrect, etc. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alex, you have seen for yourself the very source I have used. Again, the site was: http://www.handballaustralia.com.au/about.php?table=about_us&id=2 Every statement made in my small article derives from that site. As you obviously, have the better know-how in using the Wikpedian package, and as you genuinely seem concerned for the propriety of the material on it and how it is entered, why don't you simply go ahead yourself amd source it properly. My sourcing techniques are only approximate on here - especially in the case of website sourcing. All you have to do is site that one source properly. As you are expecting me to go ahead and better the grammar on articles, and use my particular skills and knowledge, I am, equally, relying on others with better technical know-how to use their own initiative and work as a team to make Wikipedia better.

Now, having said that, Alex, it is nevertheless, somewhat disturbing to me to think that after all I have explained to you re the significant misrepresentation of reality that using your meagre [back-street] sourcing has created that you would continue to put up such trite tripe (really) on this topic, or at least, as we originally portrayed the activity. As one who has given such a large most-of-life commitment to the original Downball game, to have someone come along and just trite the game because of some so-called "policy" - when this is very obviously (to most people) one of those instances when such formality is just not applicable, nor reality (We are speaking, here, of what is mostly, an informal kids' activity played by every alternative mother's son, for generation upon generation - worldwide [It is almost like girls' 'skippy'!!] - can you imagine the scope and level of what I am saying here??!!) - to have someone trivialize such a huge icon in modern history is almost like someone trivializing Mozart!! For all we know, this game, or near forms of it, have been played by over a billion young people, in many large countries over generations now! The original article claimed that it had been Chinese. When we researched, as physical educators in the 1980's, we found that it was highly popular in the United States then, and in NZ and Australia-wide. We did not go further than that. But as no one ever formally wrote on the topic, or try to sell articles on it over counters, nothing was ever in print anywhere.

Now, why don't I show you just a couple (of countless such) comparisons: Go to the Wikipedian article on "Marbles", or on "Shoes", etc. and on some of the other sports, and just see how much of them are referenced as you're expecting! You'll see paragraph upon paragraph - no reference. Fight those, and see where you end up!! Why pick on that lovely little kids' game??(Denidowi (talk) 09:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

The link you have directed me to is conventiently unavailable due to 'bandwith issues with the author'. It seems we cannot resolve the problem. Although your version of the article might be correct, facts are not covered in reliable sources and so must be removed. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm with Alex Douglas on this. This version is totally unacceptable. It has no sources and appears to be entirely original research. The current version - and that's the one that should stand - is entirely sourced and makes the article notable, if nothing else. Keep Alex's version. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Merely because you have an agenda to flog, HelloAnnyong ... not because you genuinely want Wikipedia to contain actual knowledge or truth. If we are, at all, to pretend that Wikipedia is credibly encyclopaedic, then the very first quality it must possess, even over and above referencing, is that any references used are credible and represent the real world. References are not used in an encyclopaedia simply because they exist or because someone has written them somewhere. They must be checked out for genuine honesty, and as being representative. When one enters sideline issues, or rare aspects and issues of public debate, as part of only a five sentence spiel that should really be descriptive of this activity and its history in some reliably encyclopaedic fashion, such 'broadsides' become grossly misrepresentational and misleading of the topic when considering the very point of the whole encyclopaedic exercise in the first place. It would be better to withdraw the article altogether from an encyclopaedia rather than allow the encyclopaedia's already flagging reputation to suffer further. (Denidowi (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
(Grr, two edit conflicts.) I have no agenda here; I merely found this page from a listing on another page. The thing is, your "genuine honesty" and "being representative" are subjective. What you and I consider to be representative of the subject could be completely different. As for the references here, we have criteria for it: in order for a source to be acceptable, it needs to be a secondary source that is verifiable, notable and credible. That's why, for example, a blog about Australian handball would be unacceptable - because its content is entirely unchecked and there's no way to verify that the information on there is correct. And as for the article not existing, well, that's not really going to work. We try to improve articles before deleting them. Only articles that are entirely non-notable or are otherwise unsalvageable get deleted, and this article is not as bad as you think. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking, HelloAnnong: Where do you come from, and what is your personal experience in this game??(Denidowi (talk) 08:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I'm an American, and I have no experience with the game. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, any insight in life at all, and you can probably see why I asked. It is clearly evidenced in your comments. As with Alex's, they are simply not representative; and you couldn't really care less either, because you do not have any love for the game, nor for the country you are virtually setting yourself up as some authority re. Basically, neither of you knows very much what you are talking about in this field. Why don't you work on your own fields of expertise? I assume you have them? I don't know how aware you are of it, but in real encyclopaedias, contributors are approached because they are experts in their fields, before they are even considered as the authors of particular articles. Experts are asked for their views and contributions. I certainly wouldn't be going to a site on modern art or American indian crafts, etc. and be imposing myself upon their writings or works, because the level of my thoughts and expertise in those areas is just not reality - no matter what the reason. I would have to be running some personal hidden agenda to be imposing myself where I just did not belong(60.230.3.172 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

Okay, there are a couple of issues here. The first is that you do not own this article. On Wikipedia, everyone is allowed to edit any article they choose. Just because you claim to have some insight on the game does not mean that you and only you are allowed to edit this article. Next, there are Wikipedia rules about what can and cannot show up in an article. All information on Wikipedia has to be attributed to a source - that's what WP:V says. And WP:OR says: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas..." So you can write whatever you want, but it must be attributed to an article.
So as for your version of this page, nothing on there was attributed to any articles. You were removing an article that was entirely sourced - that is, every sentence had at least one secondary article as its source - and replacing it with one that was entirely unsourced. And that is unacceptable. Does that make sense? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense within its own 'realm' of protocol. What I am saying is that that protocol has considerable power to create considerable errancy, because the fact that somebody simply put whacky or limited ideas into print in today's world means zero! In fact, most of the sources used in this article are not even in print. Someone has simply 'banged up' some website on something or other, and within that site, made some comments re that handball game ... but ANYONE can say ANYTHING! The real "Australian handball", by name, has nothing to do with this schoolyard game. I, personally, have put in tens of 1000's of hours in the version similar to this schoolyard game. Even today, in my 50's, I play the current version, as described here, with my youngest son, 2 or 3 times per week. Yet I also know people associated with, and have seen played, played the real "Australian handball", which is not the name of the schoolyard game. The game Alex has left floating on here is "four square", and there is already an American site dealing with that. And since very little of it is sourced, why don't you go and dispute with them and edit their work and lack of referencing?? Somebody [I'm not sure whether it was Alex or not] completely shot down all the original many hours of work that was put into this original article by many, many people - that was far more accurate re the 'school' game. There had been a great deal of thought thrown into this original article by many young authors; you could see they had gone to a great deal of trouble. A few hoons came in, and Alex or someone after just ripped the entire floor out of the original work and all the subsequent, informative editing, mainly done by various young folks. This article now is just dog's piddle, by comparison to its former 'glory'. What one could take from what I am saying is, if Wikipedia wants its information to be genuinely credible ... if it wants its information to be true ... if it genuinely wants to BE an online encyclopaedia, then it has to act like one, and carry more important policies that actually relate to the manner in which all recognized encyclopaedias succeed in their credibility. Regardless of "sourcing", they go to experts in their field and have them enter information on the various topics of their expertise, WITHOUT requiring that these valuable experts reference every single thing they say. These people do not have to be 'notable', such as Alex was requiring; they just need to be respected within their several fields for their honesty and knowledge regarding that field. Being a professional physical educator, myself, and known among other physical educators and many citizens here for the much I have done in times past re these games, and the making of them public, and the establishment of an association in conjunction with others of like mind, and that by proper contact, such can be verified, I believe I would hold such position in any properly constituted encyclopaedia. Now, admittedly this more novel game was under the wrong heading, as there is already a recognized game of Australian handball, but at least all these young folks prepared a far superior and informative, more accurate rendition re their four square game than the piddle that currently sits there. As I say, when I saw the trash that it had been reduced to, I simply altered the article to represent the real Australian handball game. At that point, it was, technically more correct than it had ever been. Right now, in real sense, it is a lie of an article, because that game isnot the real Australian handball: it is a different game altogether - though it is not the team handball game of the Europeans either.(Denidowi (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia believes reliable sources provide truth. If you think the sources are incorrect, please contact the author of those reliable sources. "My" version (the sourced version) of Australian handball is played on a rectangular court divided into quadrents. If you play it differently find a reliable sources that proves "your" rules and we can include both, because seeing as there is no governing body for the game, there is no definite set of rules. I think that addresses all of your concerns. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex, what you just haven't cottoned onto at all is that neither "version", for want of a better word, is Real "Australian Handball". The real Australian Handball is altogether different, insofar as the ball is hit directly to the wall - no bounce. Also, in this country, it is mostly played off 3 walls. They have constructed 2 different grades of their own rubber ball for playing the game - one red, for the faster game, the other blue and slightly larger. The red ball is between squash ball and tennis ball size; the blue ball is almost a large as the tennis ball. This game has been in the official record books here for many generations. In the early days, it was mainly run through the Catholic community, as I understand it. It has actually existed in Australia since the 19th Century, as I am finding out more about it. Now that I have a few sources for presenting something on the game, plus I have contacted a couple of the body corporate currently running it, I am almost in position to replace the current article with the real thing - which is Neither, the game you are describing, nor the Downball Veeball wall game which I have described - which latter requires the ball to bounce before hitting the wall, and which is played off one wall, and played with use of a tennis ball. Other boundaries are also different. The real Australian handball game is an historical and very real culture of its own.(124.181.199.219 (talk) 10:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)) So what I might need is your help to place the sources correctly.

Sure I'd be more than happy to help format and place the source correctly. Please state your obtained references, on this talk page and I'll add it format it. I'll have to make sure that it meets Wikipedia's official policies guidelines per WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:CS and WP:RS, aswell as a long list of others. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well that's good news, if I'm stuck. You do realize, I suppose, that the entry would entirely replace the current article, because the current representation is not the real "Australian Handball" at all, and should not be on there? The game you describe is generally called, 'four square'. It only differs from the American version in that we generally use the tennis ball. You might want to make that edit on the current 'Four square' article.(Denidowi (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Can you at least provide some physical evidence of this game that you're suggesting? An article, a blog post - anything to prove that this game actually exists. Without any actual proof, you really don't have much to go on other than saying, "It exists! I know it!" — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.handballaustralia.com.au/about.php?table=about_us&id=2 Annyong.

But I am working with the people right now that run the game. Also, I doscovered some very good articles re both games in the State Library yesterday; took me quite some time and paper ordering. Just give me a few days, and I'll get it up and running ... might take a little longer to get the veeball article up; but the Aussie handball shouldn't be too long Kindly - Denidowi(Denidowi (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC))

Great. I'll wait until your other state your references that you discovered at the library. Please post them on the talk page. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Use a sandbox page to create the article before you replace the current one with your text. Something like User:Denidowi/Australian Handball or something. That way we can look at the article, critique it, and so on, before replacing the current one. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Good idea HelloAnnyong, I originally made a sandbox on my user page before rewriting the article. It's still there and if you wish to use it Denidowi you're more than welcome too. See User:Alex Douglas/Sandbox 8. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've pretty much, tonight, finished setting up the article itself and the referencing in pretty much Harvard style. So it is in good shape for a written article now; so all it needs now is that I get the commands right - Wik program-wise, so it'll do what it's supposed to do. But I'm a highly booked fellow; so it is a matter of ample clear time to work through all the issues I'm likely to face with it.(Denidowi (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC))
Great. I've just been thinking that although your source(s) refer to Australian handball as a game played with the use of walls, or in Veeball one wall and my sources refer to it as a 'tennis-ball' downball game.. we should include all of these versions in the one article, if we can get it sourced. For example, the first sentence "Australian handball, commonly known in Australia simply as handball, is a term used to describe various ball games." Then go on to say, in the lead, that there three basic variations of Australian handball, and a much larger multitude of variations in each variant.. Then look at each game; if and only if, sources can reference these sections. I'd like to hear what you think about this. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I am a physical educator. Sport is a profession for me, AND it is a love. I expect it properly dealt with and properly represented. I know these bodies I am describing were formally and properly constituted. The Australian Handball Council has been around for nearly 100 years. They have their own independent history in our country here; and they deserve their legitimate place and independence on here. I have removed the wall game because, very simply, it is not 'Australian Handball'. Yet I love that game; my life has many years invested in it. But, frankly, I am also an honest person, and it does not belong with The genuine Australian Handball, and has developed quite independently from it. They each live within their own right - these games. The precise game you describe: we have to be honest with the public: it is "Four-Square". There is already an article describing four-square; fortunately, it says a great deal more on it, and is much more truly representative of it than what you have placed on this page under Australian Handball. I am not placing veeball/wall downball on here: they are completely different games, holding formally constituted and recognized championships in their own right, at various levels throughout this country. You will see from the article, when I place it. If I were you, seeing you are so keen to place what is there - even though I wouldn't really place it at all, because it just doesn't adequately represent reality; but if you are so keen to do so, I suggest you place it on the proper Four-Square article, starting out with the words: "In Australia, this game ........etc" and that should serve adequately because it is only 5 sentences long, and will still give it legitimacy on that American-designed site. Good Luck with it. Denidowi(Denidowi (talk) 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Okay Denidowi, that sounds good. When you find sources that reference the real version of "Australian handball" the original version will be removed and placed at Four_square_regional#Australia. The history and the rules of this version will need to be sourced before it is placed in this article, because the current sources actually manage to reference something, however minor. Also, if you wish to mention Australian Handball Council you will not be able to use their official website to source it, as this is a primary source. In conclusion, find more references and upload 'your' version at a sandbox on your userpage, or mine at User:Alex Douglas/Sandbox 8. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

It is all done now, folks. Thanks very much for your help. As I further contact people from the handball association, I am certain many will have their own personal sources of articles, and will elucidate further and add to my work. That will be good to get it on the move. Alex, your idea of 'Four square' regional sounds good to me. Nevertheless, to give your article credence, you will need to find references clarifying the nature, or rules, of its actual play. That is what people want to know when they look up anything to find out what it is, and usually, something about its history and background. I don't know if it is of any use to you, but I quite enjoyed, last night, watching various Youtube filming of both - handball, four square and wall downball - matches and examples. I have no idea whether they will serve you as a direct reference re the nature of the four square game. By the way, just for the experience, you might want to watch the Belmont High School year 12 Grand final. It is truly novel!(Denidowi (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually, this isn't the end of it. We're not leaving just because you rewrote the article. Within the next day or so, I'm going to go through and copyedit this down so it's not so POV. Your current version is a little heavy on declaring this version of the game to be the right and true one; it's almost as if you have an axe to grind. Also, "personal sources" troubles me, since primary sources aren't allowed here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou HelloAnnyong, it would be great if you could copyedit this, as there is a large amount of POV is prevalant. I will have a more thorough look at the references over Easter, when I have some spare time, to check if they are infact reliable. Thanks! Can't wait for the copyedit. Alex Douglas (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you two, I am not very happy with your attitude here. It is, very much, sounding like it is YOU who actually seem to have "axes to grind". I think I will have to report you. What are you actually 'on about'?? There is no [so-called] POV on here. What is so POV about it? Also, you know it is not the properly constituted, nor government-recognized game this 4 square that was previously placed under this heading - four square is not "Australian Handball". It is played worldwide as a novel activity; the Americans run world championships. I don't know if they have properly constituted it though. I haven't checked. The 4 square game is great; I play it, even now. I rarely play handball. There are no axes to grind from me; as a professional educator, I am merely categorizing these sports correctly. Therefore, there is also a place for four square, Annyong. Have you ever looked it up; or are you just so intent on throwing your weight around on here to prove some point mainly known to yourself, when, in truth, you said yourself, you really have no personal idea on these games at all, nor any love for them, nor understand anything of them as they apply here to Australian culture, or history? These two games are both - historically, and culturally, far further separated even than [say] Australian football and rugby - yet we never attempt to blend or intermix those latter two codes of football. So why should it be done with hand games? It has taken me ages, and much, much searching to try and get this work I have done into the type of shape and write up that you have each been requiring of me. I have undertaken a quite a considerable deal to try to keep you happy on this. Don't you think that for whatever reason, you have decided to personally carry out some kind of personal vendetta on me with this, and no matter how brilliantly, how much research or properly executed, you would still picky-pick to the point that it never did possess any value in its own right - value that the game itself deserved, a position clearly its own, as in any other code, especially being well over a century old??(Denidowi (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC))(Denidowi (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

The current version of the article is sourced, but is written ridicously. It is written more like a newspaper article than an encylopediac entry. I will review the current version of the article thoroughly over Easter, however I must protest in the mentioning of the "Australian Handball Council" in the article, unless the institution/organisation has been the subject of secondary sources like newspapers or magazines. I have some queries over the reliability and verifiability of your sources, particularly using the "official" Australian Handball Council website to source itself; it is used a primary source which is not 'allowed', per se. In regard to references, what is the "City of Preston Post Times," a simple Google search gives two results; what makes this source a reliable source? Please assert that "100 years of handball in South Australia 1901-2000" is not a self-published sources (online and paper), because otherwise it will be considered unacceptable source. Please address my concerns to uphold Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Finnally, it was merely a suggestion that the article should cover two ball games as the term "Australian handball" is used in both games. Lastly a photograph published by the National Library of Australia titled "Men playing on handball courts" featues NO walls, as 'your' version of the game suggests is used. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Alex, I am not sure your statement that the article is written 'ridiculously'. It's funny; I sort of thought the same of yours!! So, I suggest, in life, that you allow for each person's individuality of person, because some of the problem seems to be a clash of personalities. So hopefully, we are adult enough to recognize that may be present, and act accordingly in good faith with one another. If you have any particular concerns re writing or language, just let me know, and see what we can work out for the Wikipedian community, because at this point, it must not be very helpful to them re all this discrepancy and debate. The '100 Years' reference is held as an icon in the National Library; in that respect, the national library itself, acts as any third party reference/verification. As I say this took an huge amount of work on my part to try and satisfy your requirements; it cannot simply be done by going through a computer! Much leg work, etc, my friend. That's what I say is the working difference between love and commitment and someone not vested in the topic sufficiently to make such efforts. That's why I don't go to Your topics of life interst and background and sabotage them, according to my own understanding and commitment. You would be much more qualified. If you want the Preston Post Times article, you will have to contact Leader Group Newspapers or go to the State library.(Denidowi (talk) 06:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

I give up on this discussion and editing the article; our problem cannot be resolved. Denidowi, I wish you good luck on expanding the article in an encylopediac style. HelloAnnyong, I look forward to reading the article once you have copyedited the current version. I will move my version of "Australian handball" to Australian regional rules. Thanks and good luck! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Denidowi, now you're just being tendentious. If you're going to fight us every step of the way, then nothing is going to get done. You don't own this article, and this isn't a one-man crusade. As such, I'm going to go through the article now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
So I went through and edited the article down. To his credit, Denidowi actually pulled out most of my issues with the article, so that's good. I added sections and shuffled some stuff around. One thing I can't figure out is the line: "Currently, the Executive Director is Jim Kiley, and the Secretary/Treasurer is Greg Hay." As you'll see if you look at the edit, I added a comment in there asking "of what?" What is Jim Kiley the Executive Director of?
I'm also curious as to some of the categories. Why is it in the 2000s fads category? I didn't get any sense of that from reading the article. Other than that, though, I'm relatively happy with the article as it stands now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I like it, HelloAnnyong. I'll just sort out that last citation with the couple in the wrong place at the end of the previous section. But that's OK ... no problem. It's extremely late here in Australia; so I'm hitting the sack right now. Thanks for your help(Denidowi (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC))

Alex, I had a chance to check out the Four square entry. That looks the very likely placing for the game, as it is truly in amongst its own there. Looks good: tis, noticeably, practically the only entry with referencing, I note. And the worthwhile point about its placement is that there is plenty surrounding it that quite adequately describes the game, and culture around it, which is what I was saying was the chief missing component previously. So it's actually in a very useful position there. Good luck with it.(Denidowi (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Please note that the four square game has never, at any stage, been referred to as Australian handball. It is played worldwide much the same. On the other hand, although rules for Irish, US and Australian handball are similar. each country is its own separate governing body, operates entirely independently from each other ,and names the sport according to its own country. American handball is called American handball; it is not called, 'worldwide' handball. The Australian game has always called itself, Australian handball. The first courts built were in 1847 in Melbourne. If you study the courts, anyway, you'll see they are built in different shape in Australia; but that is not the point. Its formally-constituted governing body possesses the legal right to call it "Australian handball" [it is legally constituted], just as Australian football holds the right in Law to name its game Australian football, not rugby. Football codes are not confused by name: neither should one come along and attempt to confuse the handball codes. The name, "Australian Handball", belongs to the Australian Handball Council. The other games already have their own names. Thank you.(Denidowi (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Correct, the four square game has never been referred to as Australian handball, that's why the article is called "Australian variant of four square. If the only difference between the rules of American handball and Australian handball is the name, then please make mention of this on the "In Australia" section of the American handball game. Unless the rules are completely different, the article does not warrant it's on article, see WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving

I'm back.. did you miss me. I've been doing a bit of research of my own and encountered Wikipedia's entry on American handball; it seems 'your' rewritten version has exactly the same rules as that game. Infact, I have taken the liberty of moving 'your' rewritten version to a section in the aforementioned article at American handball. If you do not want it on this article, the key thing is that you will have to verify, with reliable sources, is that the game is completely different. Aswell, I have removed the original research and unsourced material from Four square regional, which is the entire article and as such have nominated it for deletion and moved the Australian variant of four square to this article. Meanwhile, I have renamed this article, Australian handball, to Australian variant of four square. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Argh.. now all the pages are screwed up. Denidowi is reverting text, and now things are going to get all messed up. You could have at least discussed your big move before actually doing it. You both need to resolve this issue before we get duplicate text all over the place. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Alex, the Australian game arrived here before the US game hit the states from Ireland. Thank you. If either of those articles were to be removed, it would therefore be the United states versions. Thanks. Let's get things into context. Also, it is NOT just the name. As i said before, the courts are differently shaped; in many senses, that makes the game different. Also, I believe the serving and scoring alignments are different. From its arrival in 1847, this has become very much, an Australian game. Now, if you want me to tamp[er with your disco articles, you are going perfectly about it the right way for that to happen, Young man. Further, what you Don't know is that i have contacts within my own family that are well in and high on the disco scene. Call my bluff if you wish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denidowi (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Make note that the "the Australian game arrived here before the US game hit the states from Ireland" on the American handball or Gaelic handball. "the courts are differently shaped" - consensus has it that the size and shaping of courts does not make the game's rules completely different. Please don't "tamp[er" with featured lists, those discographies are very difficult to expand on; that is a personal attack, and against Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy, they will not be tolerated. It is irrelevant if you have relatives involved in disco music. Furthemore, I have enlisted the help of Wikipedia's requests for comment process to deal with our edit war, conflict of interests, your personal attacks against me and your previous vandalism of the article with an unsourced and unverifiable material. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism, conflict of interests

There has been a dispute between two edits for some time, regarding as to whether or not this article should be about "Australian handball", with the only difference between it and "American handball" are the court size and name, or as to whether it should maintain an article about the Australian variant of four square. The above discussion is in excess of nine thousand words. Alex Douglas (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

With my experience as Phys ed'er, and as an educator of some decades generally, let me suggest what I see as the real way this should all go. I'll lay some background first: Firstly, appropriate honour has been given to all recognized football codes. There should be nothing varied from this practice in the handball sports or any other kind of sport. Each code has its own genuine place in society, and has made its significant contribution to the culture and to history of the country among young people generally. However, we have arrived at the new Century with quite some momentum behind the 'Team Handball' game - often now, also just called, "Handball", and currently we need to appropriate place to the new Olympic sport of Team Handball - formerly called, here, "European Handball", in order, in fact, at the time, to separate it from Australian and the other 'handball' codes, if we can call them that. If we were to play the game right down the line Wikipedia-wise, however, strictly speaking, the Gaelic, American and Australian games of handball are called just that: "Handball". But Wikipedia already uses a Disambiguation Handball 'item' taking up that simple title, Handball, for sending 'searchers' in the direction of the particular hand games they are looking for. In real essence, all things being equal, just as in 'four square', there should be an article for "Handball", and it should carry its own sub-sections for the various variants. The "Australian four square variant' should be likewise - the mother article and the variants to follow, referenced as much as possible, but not rigidly so. It should not have its own article, as such. The practice, as I've seen it among the many Wik articles, is to mainly challenge for a reference where there could be some discrepancy over the claim - not for every word. For instance, translating as I've see this requirement called for in other articles, a write up on 'four square' should not challenge basic everyday rules as they are played in most places all because the only written article on it says it's played in quadrants. We all know that in Australia it is played either with a tennis ball, or one of the rubber balls they have designed for such games. We all know that the ball must be delivered such that it bounces in one's own square then into an opponent square, unless the opponent chooses to receive on the full, and plays a volley return. There are many aspects that are quite general that should not have to have every rigid reference to say them, just as in other encyclopedias, and as in other articles on Wik. This hard-nosed, traditional army approach is not an aid to proper representation of any topic, nor to an education for other people genuinely wanting to know or understand a topic or setting. I guess the most important thing that could be said re the categorization on this topic is that regardless of whether both of these games are given their own separate reference, or whether each is merely in sub-category, is that when one types in "Australian handball" in the search mode, the topic that should come up is the traditional handball code played and registered in Australia. This is currently, not the case. The other worthwhile point is that it is just not sensible, nor reasonable, that Australian handball should be sub-referenced under 'American handball', nor vice versa, unless it is redirected from a search for "Australian Handball". Really the article should just be called, 'Handball'.(Denidowi (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Alright Denidowi, I want to resolve this dispute. Do you want me to move the "Australian variant of four square" as a section in the four square article? And redirect the term "Australian handball" to the section under American handball? This would be fine, the current article ("my revision") is very small and very hard to reference and I think would be better under the four square article, not the Four square regional article, which is now under deletion. The game that you are writing about "Australian handball" has similiar rules to 'American handball' and as such, you should remove mention the difference in courts size and its history and development, seeing as the rules, apart from court size, are the same. To satisfy you, and because it seems appropriate, I have redirected the search term "Australian handball" to the In Australia section of American handball. Does this satisfy you? If not, what should be done? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 04:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to appropriate articles. There isn't really enough content to warrant a separate article called "Australian variant of four square". However, I think that there's enough precedent to warrant a separate "Australian handball" article. Consider the existence of such articles like Gaelic handball. Between that, and the fact that there's a separate Australian handball associate, I think there's enough to justify its own article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
True, HelloAnnyong. Yet, in respect of Australian Handball, this has not taken place. Further, a Google search under, "Australian handball Wikipedia", still directs to the four square variant.(Denidowi (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC))
Following HelloAnnyong's comment re the Gaelic handball article and the American handball article setting precedent for a separate Australian handball article, given that it has an associate, I investigated two other sports to see if this is typical of the precedence set. i found this to be the case. I simply looked up 'Rugby union" and 'League': these possessed their own articles as such, then I looked up "Australian rugby union" and "...League", and sure enough, there were articles about Australian rugby union and about League. I then checked out soccer - preferred international name, "Association football". Then I looked up the Australian article on such. They also exist. There are articles, in fact, describing the development and current place of the game under many different countries, each containing their own specific 'home brand' of these games, you might say.
It is quite clear that the practice on Wikipedia is that where a recognized body governs the game, within each country, an article is placed on the development and status of these various games within each country caring to place one, or placed by one with the initiative, from anywhere, to do so.Considering then, Gaelic and American handball articles, in conjunction with these findings, there is no doubt but that there should be an article placed on "Australian Handball", especially as it is no subset of the American game, nor vice versa.(124.176.181.99 (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)) — 124.176.181.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Okay. I have moved Australian handball, and its talkpage, to thier own pages. Is everything okay now? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge Australian variant of handball to four square and Put Australian handball through an AfC. It is appropriate to merge the material about Australian variant of handball with the four square article; not much can be written about it. In regard to Australian handball, it should go through an AfC to determine as to whether is appropriate to exist as a separate article. Denidowi, I have fixed the Google search link, try another Google search and instead of redirecting you to the four square variant, it should redirect you to the true Australian handball material. If/when an Australian handball article is created, I'll change the redirect again. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I now find it more appropriate to give Australian handball, its own article. Alex Douglas (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; thanks for those changes, Alex - giving place for the article on Australian Handball. It all seems to be looking good now.(Denidowi (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC))

Awesome, our conflict is over. I hope you continue to edit the Australian handball article because I think it's looking good now. I'll check back on the article every now and then. Oh and I'm going to archive the talk page because its well over twelve thousand words.. good luck in your future edits. I will no longer be checking the talk page, so if you want to contact me, please leave a message on my talk page and I'll get back to you right away. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_handball/Archive_1&oldid=1090472823"