The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Prioryman (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

1 point player[edit]

• ... that disability sport classifications include 1 point player, 2 point player, 3 point player, 4 point player, 4.5 point player, S1, S2, S3, S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, S9, S10, S11, S12, S13, T11, T12, T13, T20, T31, T32, T33, T34, T35, T36, T37, T38, T40, T42, T43, T44, T45, T46, T51, T52, T53 and T54?

• Reviewed: UCF Knights women's soccer

Created/expanded by LauraHale (talk). Nominated by Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• Do we need so many articles with repetitive content? Many sections like History, Getting classified are same, in case of swimming. "Sport" is similar, each with a definition of Jane Buckley in case of swimming. I suggest a merge into 3 articles: "Wheelchair basketball classifications" (with all point player article), "Disability swimming classifications" (with the S) and "Disability athletics classifications" (with the T).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• I think re-organising the swimming classifications as per the above makes it read better. That said, I feel the DYK contains too much detail in its current form and something like "5 wheelchair basketball, 13 swimming and 22 track classifications" is a more reasonable level of detail for the general reader. Looking at the underlying articles, I tend to agree with User:Redtigerxyz that they contain a significant degree of overlap and could reasonably be merged into 3 articles. --PeterJeremy (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

For DYK purposes the articles have all been made in the required timeframe, are just long enough or plenty long enough, and none have yet been nominated for merger or deletion. They are referenced and neutral. However this rule appears at 1a: "may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article", but in this case text is spun between many of these articles. As a whole however the DYK requirements are certainly met for the first one. The hook is allowed some leeway in being longer because extra new DYK articles are hooked, so the length is covered. However the hook is not very exciting as it currently reads! This is an extreme hook. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I considered the idea of merging the articles but the problem was the way that the reader would approach them. I reasoned that a reader would either be following a link from a Paralympian, or else looking up the category independently, having encountered it in a news article or the like. In the former case, the link would have to go to an article or an anchor; to be useful in the latter case, the reader would have to be able to get it from a reasonable search ie an article of a disambiguation page. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment only I had a quick look over this extreme hook and the articles do appear to be genuinely different and researched. I'm fairly sure that this is not essential for DYK but the articles will only have value if they are linked to athletes and athletic records. I couldn't find much evidence of this - is there a "list of" and are they linked to that list? I'm thinking that having these links demonstrates how these rather drily titled articles might be accessed by a wikipedia reader. Victuallers (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Need one more article: Disability sport classifications. --69.157.46.38 (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Placing the tick with a GTG as no one has merged the articles as hinted at above. Boredom will be overcome with sheer volume of text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC) wel now a merge discussion has started. so tick struck. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Dear me! Displaying this hook at DYK will not help the reputation of either DYK or disability sport. Readers are likely to question the judgment of DYK participants for using the hook, as well as marveling at the "boringness" of disability sport sponsors. I agree withe PeterJeremy's recommendation that these classification categories should be documented in a group of three or more articles, each about one particular set of classifications. (I suggest more than three articles. Instead of covering all of the T categories for athletics in a single article, I can see benefit in having separate articles for the classification systems for the different types of disability.) In my attempts to read and understand the classifications and the underlying philosophies of the classification systems, I found myself moving back and forth between different articles frequently (to compare the definitions of different levels), but I got bored before gaining much understanding. (The distinctions actually seem interesting, but I lacked the patience to navigate between articles enough times to fully understand them.) Combining these into a smaller set of articles would be enormously beneficial. I endorse keeping the DYK nomination alive while the creator is encouraged to merge the articles. --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I second Orlady's suggestion and comments. This hook really is not good advertising, and the articles, while technically stand-alone articles, are not such that we should put them in the shop window. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merger discussion is at Talk:Disability classifications of the International Paralympic Committee. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• My boringness comment refers to the lengthy hook! The articles are OK in themselves. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Time to close this?PumpkinSky talk 14:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Given the problems that have been identified above, I can't see this passing DYK and the nomination has been open for a long time as it is. Prioryman (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)