Talk:Cynna Kydd

message: Nice work, Ambi! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no. Partner --> Fiancee --> Husband/Wife. Ambi 11:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a top article, should be a guideline on how all sports articles should be written. When you compare this article to say, Ted Whitten, it puts it to shame. Rogerthat 02:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I do appreciate further any feedback you can give, too. :) Ambi 02:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the article, with my only issue being the image is a little small. Not much one can do though other than source another one. :( Nice work. -- Longhair 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - any chance you could stop by the FAC? I'm sure the image is bound to come up as an objection, in which case I'll do what I can to find an alternative, but I'm not hopeful. Ambi 03:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (Talking about "engaged to partner") Well, following your logic, you can't become engaged to someone who isn't your partner (excluding arranged / sham marriages), can you? Andjam 14:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncategorised 

message: I don't appreciate Rebecca falsely accusing me of vandalism.  Cyanna Neele is a quite legitimate name of this person, and a quite legitimate possibility for the article name.  In fact, it was already indexed in categories under that name, even though it wasn't what you saw if you looked at those categories, before I changed it.
But then when I found out there wasn't even a redirect from that name, so that if someone entered that name into the "Go" box it wouldn't work, or if someone linked to that name in an article it would be a redlink, it called for immediate attention.
At least after her reversion, things didn't go back to the totally unacceptable status which existed previously.  Now that formerly missing redirect does exist. Gene Nygaard 03:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I assumed it was vandalism, seeing as it was being moved to a never-before-used misspelling of a prior name, an apparently bizarre move. As I explained on your talk page, please be more careful with things like this in future. Rebecca 03:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies too--I mistyped the name, and the redirect from the maiden name already existed; Rebecca just overlooked the need to change the indexing in the categories when she previously moved the page.  Gene Nygaard 03:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't be making false accusations

message: Any chance of a free photo? .   — Matt Crypto 10:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'll need to poke Ambi about it. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 12:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No luck. My camera was unable to be fixed and had to be thrown out, so I'm completely sans camera at the moment, and thus have been unable to take a suitable replacement at all this season. Rebecca 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: Nice to see an FA about an Australian netball player :) However, I find the tone a bit too sympathetic. There's a constant stream of "she failed to do X, probably because of Y". Disappointing form? Nerves associated with captaincy! Couldn't get a job? Must have been her netball commitments. Cut from the national team? "The national squad was at the time enjoying an unusual glut of strikers". I find this tone just a bit too sympathetic - if she didn't make the national team, it's obviously because she wasn't good enough, for example. Stevage 10:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concerns, but I'm not sure how to fix them, because I don't necessarily agree with your examples. Your first example may be fair enough, but I do recall it being reported as such in most of the articles I read. The sentence about not being able to find work was the subject of a newspaper article which said exactly that, and I don't think, given this, that the wording as is is problematic. The final example, though, was pretty accurate - the Australian team at the time had about five shooters who would have qualified for just about any other national team in the world, but of course, only two available spots. This is backed up by the sources I used, and I think it's a fair characterisation to make. Rebecca 03:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sympathetic tone 

message: amazing how this became a FA??--TheFEARgod 13:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: same here, the article doesnt bear any importance outside a small group of people (namely netball fans from Australi.). there are manyred links in the article which is imo very bad for an FA (as was the case with yesterday's article, which was about a slightly famous person). I think these FA's arent the way they used be before. there would be real quality articles about actually important topics. but wikipedians chose it so all we can do is complain. --Suleyman Habeeb 15:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree this is nn outside a small group of people (Gnevin 18:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even though the article is not bad, the topic was not good enough to be a FA. Dominican 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. The article isn't bad, but it's a far cry from a featured article, that's for sure. Especially since it only has one picture and that picture is both small and blurry. Just compare it with almost any other FA and you'll easily notice the difference. CptUnconscious 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Strong agree and then some..  
That this should be a wikipedia featured article degrades the entire Wikipedia project.  An article about an obscure player of an obscure sport is about as important (for an international, widely-read website) as an article about a high school swim-meet or someone's cat.  This is a major downturn for wikipedia.  --86.192.102.116 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no featured article 

message: Get more, but most of all, get that fuzzy one OFF here! It's horrific. :|
:The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.224.216.215 (talk • contribs) 13:06 20 August 2006  (UTC)
:Yea, that's the only thing missing from this article.  It really needs more pics.  Otherwise, great job to all who worked on it.  --Brownings 15:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: The very last ref on the page is broken, I've tried to hunt down the page on the site but with no luck, anyone else? --15:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No luck here either on the PDF file.  I did find her player profile page though.  I've added it to the links so that we have at least one working.  --Brownings 17:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one and only external link on a main page FA was broken? Oh dear. Badgerpatrol 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PDF stats link broken 

message: Pretty funny the comments about the importance of the subject of this article. It's probably worth pointing out that netball is the most played women's sport in Australia, and Australia frequently dominates the sport internationally. It's really not an obscure sport, and the Australian team is obviously not obscure, and by the looks of things, this player is one of the more notable within the league. Far more notable than FA's about various suburbs around the place, anyway. Stevage 14:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an amateur (or at best semi-professional sport) sport which is at the most optimistic on a par with, say, club cricket or semi-professional soccer in the UK, or perhaps minor college-level sports in the United States. This is a player who has never even been selected for the Commonwealth Games (on the last occasion, withdrawing due to "low motivation", i.e. she couldn't be bothered) and to my reading and having done a bit of research, does not even seem to be indisputably amongst the best netball players in Australia. If we had an ordinary club-cricketer or a journeyman football semi-pro as the main page FA there would be similar notability issues. As expressed above, I feel this individual IS notable enough to be in Wikipedia, and hence (under the current rules) suitable for an FA. Now that articles within projects are starting to be routinely ranked for importance (for example, this one is "low") many might feel the time is right to include an "importance" criterion in the FA selection process. Those that are questioning the selection of this article as an FA (some, myself included, might also question it separately in terms of basic quality) are merely articulating that idea. Badgerpatrol 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to all FAs, or just those that appear on the main page? I don't see any benefit in discouraging people from bringing "unimportant" articles up to FA status. However I could see an argument for prioritising "important" articles on the main page. Stevage 08:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. In the first instance, I would advocate an extra layer of selection for the main page FA to take importance and educational value into account. This is conceivable now that many articles are beginning to be labelled on an at least semi-objective value scale. I doubt if it can be unambiguously said that this Cynna Kydd and others like it truly exemplify our best work (and as stated above, I'm fairly surprised this one slipped through the net even under the current system). Badgerpatrol 14:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FAs currently work on a system of actionable objections. That the subject matter is fairly boring, and the article is fairly short, is not really actionable. Just like it's not really actionable to point out that bulbasaur is a pokemon character. Andjam 12:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm advocating a change in the rules so that notability and importance can be directly invoked in FAC discussions- and that there ought to be a separate sub-category containing those FAs suitable for the main page. Badgerpatrol 13:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I've got news for you all. ANY subject that passes the test for a wikipedia article is potentially a Featured Article. Any Featured Article can potentially appear on the front page. If you don't like that, then stop bitching about this particular article and get a consensus to change the rules on what can become a featured articles and/or which featured articles are to be considered for/placed on the front page. 84.65.213.6 16:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to this article being featured/on the front page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cynna Kydd. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060820125558/http://www.cbt.netball.asn.au/playerprofile.asp?id=87&comp=1&orgid=31&team=5 to http://cbt.netball.asn.au/playerprofile.asp?team=5&id=87&comp=1&orgid=31
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cynna Kydd. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124000933/http://www.sportsaustralia.com/articles/oct06/artid6742.html to http://www.sportsaustralia.com/articles/oct06/artid6742.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013115039/http://www.netball.asn.au/extra.asp?id=577&OrgID=1 to http://www.netball.asn.au/extra.asp?id=577&OrgID=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is an old FA about a living person, that has not been reviewed in a very long time. The article is very, very outdated, and needs to be updated with reliable sources so it can retain its FA status. In a brief Google search, I've found:
*Springbank legend Cynna Kydd aiming to retire in style, The Courier, dated September 2019. Which means that this individual was thinking about retiring circa 2019, yet this article's text is stuck in 2007. The infobox states "Last updated: 2009-03-20". She has a 20-something-year career, yet half of it is missing.
Is anyone willing to update the article so it can meet the current FA criteria? If not, the article may be proposed for review at WP:FAR. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this article is in really bad need of an update, especially for BLP. Is anyone interested in improving this, or nominating this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA in need of review