Template_talk:Team_Sport

I'm not sure about this. This could get very big indeed! Mintguy (T) 21:20, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If and when this grows too big, it can be simply broken into separate templates for groups of similar sports. No need to make strict rules about what should be included. Wipe 08:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Variants 2 Bowling? 3 Grouping 4 Splitting 5 Ball Games

Variants

Should variants of team sports belong here ? Not sure about Futsal. If it belongs there it should probably be grouped with football(soccer) given that it is governed by FIFA. --Spewmaster 00:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Futsal is different from soccer as Baseball is different from Softball and Canadian football from American football, aren't they? --Cpt.Miller 13:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

On that topic, Touch Football should be listed under Rugby but it does not come under either League or Union due to the fact that it could fit either catagory, having originated seperately from both codes and ultimately combining to form the seperate sport that it is today. --210.1.221.121 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Their is no touch article for Union if it created , we can add it Gnevin (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bowling?

Is bowling a sport? Corpx 17:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

maybe, but it is not a team sport. --Howard the Duck 03:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be added, because it CAN be a team sport; they teams play bowling. Tennis (including royal tennis) and badminton need to be added as well.174.3.103.39 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Grouping

I'm inclined to put polo and hockey into a navbox subgroup under stick-and-ball sports. They all share the common feature of maneuvering a ball (or puck) towards a goal with a type of stick: hockey is distinguished by having the ball rolling or sliding along the ground, while polo is distinguished by the use of a mount.

Also, as sepak takraw is essentially volleyball with feet instead of hands, I think it should be put in the volleyball section (which would be more descriptive than "other").

Thoughts? — Gwalla | Talk 23:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not into this grouping of sports into "codes", that is just broad generalization, and it is certainly not scientific. We can speak of football codes, for instance, since they all developed from the same sport, but, say, waterpolo is most certainly not a "code" of handball. This template was much better before, generalizing seems to have gone out of hand now. Zhelja (talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thus water polo is listed as other codes Gnevin (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Splitting

As per the thread at the very top of this page, I think it'd be good to have this template split into smaller templates, such as "football", linking all the footballs together; all the safehavens, etc. As cricket and American football really have little to do with eachother. However if they were grouped with other footballs and safehavens, the template would be much more meaningful (and a more appropriate size). Anyone else think this is a good idea?--Jeff79 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no complaints. What to do with the "miscellaneous" sports, though? — Gwalla | Talk 20:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Ball Games

I changed the name to ball games, as that seems to be what the list consists of. Rather than team sports, where it omits all motorsport, track and field team sports for a few examples. If anyone disagrees, we can change it back and discuss the issue. Elocute (talk) 20:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What about games like tennis, golf or even bowling? They're not ball games? I say this template's outgrown itself and needs to be split up into the already existing sub-categories within it (see above discussions).--Jeff79 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Airsoft and curling are not ball games. — Gwalla | Talk 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true, I have noticed a few others which are not ball games aswell. Teams sports or even ball games both seem far too generaler topics for either to be adequately covered in a navbox. It seems there is growing consensus for a split. Elocute (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I would hardly say motor sports or track and field (especially) are team sports, and that's why they're not included. chandler • 01:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Time to split it up then, yes?--Jeff79 (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about that... I saw no problem with the team sport template, by all means create other ones too, but think thisshould be reverted to a team sports template chandler • 12:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Create other ones too? So that baseball, for example, has this template and another one with it called "safehaven games" which is a simple duplication of the section in the team sports template? Really, a person reading an article about baseball might be interested in other related sports (safehaven games). There's no need for an over-sized template containing links to all other sports which can be defined as 'team' or 'game' sports (the association between baseball and kabbadi is loose indeed). The categories should suffice for that. Let's not forget the purpose of navboxes like these, and that is to easily direct readers to related article that might interest them.--Jeff79 (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with jeff, and as response to chandler, I don't really think it is our place to choose the definition of team to suit us. If teams play a sport, then surely it is a team sport, how else could we define it? And since in track we have relay teams, or elsewhere we have swim teams, or at ironman there are triathlon teams, and at F1 and A1 we have teams that race, I think that if we are going to comprehensively list teams, we should include these, however I think such a template would be unweildy, and of limited use. For that reason I support a split into the different areas of sport. Elocute (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)