User talk:Rsl12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rsl12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 

[edit] Roller derby rules

Hi! Thanks for helping out with the roller derby article. You're the first person to complain about the previous description of the rules being incomprehensible. I disagree with that assessment, but would be interested to hear what exactly was confusing about them and how they could've been improved.

The main problem I have with your edits though is that the description of the game is now extremely biased toward the modern revival and specifically WFTDA's rules. We (well, User:Onlyemarie, mainly, and myself to a lesser extent) were trying to make sure the game was described in a sufficiently general manner to 1. not burden the casual reader with too many details like the number of periods, specific durations and distances, etc. — these details aren't necessary for understanding the game and are likely to change over time and from league to league or revival to revival; and 2. describe the features of the game that are common to all leagues, including "professional" leagues, be they theatrical or unscripted, past or present.

You're right in that we didn't cite sources, and we should, but it's a process that takes time. In the meantime, content shouldn't be removed just for being unsourced, especially when not considered contentious or biographical. It just wasn't that important, at the time, and there were (and still are) very few sources available. ULC/WFTDA only published its rules in early '06, and leagues do deviate from them in non-WFTDA matches, including intraleague regular-season bouts.[1] —mjb 04:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey RSI12, I'm poking my head in to give you the reasoning behind the way I wrote the rules section. When I wrote the section, I wanted it to cover roller derby in all of its incarnations to date: old banked track and current flat/banked track. I chose to go with less instead of more specificity since WFTDA rules, while used voluntarily by many non-WFTDA leagues, are only one set of specific derby rules. In the absence of a good Web or print source laying out the differences between these different rules (which can vary from league to league and even game to game depending on the skill set, refs, and a variety of other factors), I decided to go with the rules that "make roller derby roller derby."
While there is definitely a place for WFTDA rules (and I myself play by those rules in my home league), they don't apply to all present-day or past roller derby. Hence, I think that inclusion of those rules to the exclusion of any others misrepresents the actual state of rules in present-day (and past) derby, and I'd respectfully ask that you remove them in favor of the "old" treatment of rules. Perhaps we could include a short summary of what makes WFTDA rules distinctive in another section of the article? --Onlyemarie 04:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your responses. I'm sorry, I know I too quick on the trigger to throw out everything you did. I see what you were trying to accomplish, and now that I sort of know the rules to roller derby, what you wrote makes much more sense. But to someone who knew absolutely nothing about roller derbies coming in, I couldn't understand anything. In particular, definitions of terms were left wide open. "Two teams of five skaters...take up positions alongside each other in a pack formation." This might make perfect sense if you know what a pack is, but not to someone who has never seen or heard of the sport. Perhaps you were purposely refraining from giving strict definitions in the hopes of making the rules section of the article hold true for different rulesets. If you go back to the old version, stronger statements regarding what things like "packs" and "jams" are would greatly improve readability.
Another instance: "A signal is given and the jam commences." Jams aren't defined outright, who gives a signal, or why the signal is given. Moreover, two paragraphs later, you have "Blockers (including pivots) start skating at the referee's first signal. A second signal is given to launch the jammers, who must catch up to the rear of the pack. Jammers navigate through or around the pack, then lap around the track until reaching back of the pack again." Putting these two quotes closer together would help establish that the two quotes are talking about the same thing!
"Initially leading the pack are special blockers known as pivots, who set the pace and give the other blockers direction in order to strategize and keep the pack relatively tight." What are pivots setting the pace of? (I know now it's the pace of the pack, but that's not clear at all) What does it mean to keep a pack "relatively tight" and how do you do it?
Much of what was in the rules weren't really rules--they were things that would be better presented in separate sections, such as "strategy" or "Professional leagues". They are meddlesome to someone who just wants to know how the game is played--it's hard to understand strategy if you don't even understand the rules, and distracting to get a paragraph on similarities to professional wrestling.
Regarding the generalization of rules: are the WFTDA rules the most commonly used, as stated in the article cited? If so, it makes sense to present the most common ruleset currently being used, with additional paragraphs describing that other rulesets are/have been used, and some of the major differences. But if the article is wrong, and a wide variety of rules are in play that are significantly different, your approach makes much more sense. I am doubly sorry if this is the case--I just read this one article and assumed it was so. I have no other basis for thinking this.
Finally, I disagree with your statement that "content shouldn't be removed just for being unsourced, especially when not considered contentious or biographical." The "no original research" policy is one of the three central content policies for Wikipedia. From Wikipedia's official policy:

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say.

If you're working this hard to come up with a generalized ruleset, it sounds like you're doing original research!
In any case, feel free to revert to the old version if my arguments don't hold water. I was too hasty and should have discussed these issues, particularly since I came in knowing nothing of the game.--Rsl12 23:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)