Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bodybuilding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Initial discussion

There are a bunch of things we should probably discuss:

• Article format / layout. I've been striving for a fairly uniform layout in the female bodybuilder profiles I've worked on, but there should probably be one standard.
• Dealing with competing projects. A few women (Marianna Komlos, Melissa Coates, Nicole Bass, and some others) have also been involved in pro wrestling. As you probably know, the Wikipedia pro wrestling community is very active, to say the least. There's no way that the bodybuilding project will be able to exercise "control" over these particular pages, so we'll need to be able to co-exist in these cases. I don't know if there are other competing projects, but it's something to be aware of.
• Fitness / figure. Should fitness / figure be included? To me, the answer is yes - it's closely related and should be part of the project, but others might disagree. It's also an area where I'm less knowledgeable, and so far, there doesn't seem to be anyone else actively working to improve that area.
• Dealing with AfD's. Notability is a frequent reason cited in votes for deletion. WP:BIO says that professional athletes or those who have competed at the highest amateur level are notable. There are a few cases where someone (not me) has created articles on lower-level amateurs (for example, Cindy Phillips, Melissa Dettwiller), so articles of this type might theoretically be at risk. Just something to keep an eye on, I guess.
• Scope. Individual profiles and contests seem obvious (but how far down into the amateur ranks?), but there could be other things, like magazines, bodybuilders in movies, etc.
• Historical stuff. It would be nice to have profiles on significant old-timers (people like Charles Atlas, Eugen Sandow, etc.), but those articls are harder to write due to lack of source material. Which leads to my next point...
• Source material. Since theoretically every article should be referenced, it might be useful if we could assemble a list of what non-Internet resources the project participants have available.

There are probably other things that should be hashed out, but I think this is enough rambling for now. fbb_fan 03:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, fantastic and to think I thought I may be doing this alone. There are two other users who I can immediately thing of to assist us, both Yankees76 and Bizkit 21 2002 are fantastic contributors and (like yourself) very knowledgeable and active in bbing articles. I'll be inviting both of them in the hope they'll be keen to join us.

You have raised some really great points above. Here are some of the tasks I thought of as well:

1. Reference Like yourself, concerned about number of completely unreferenced articles
2. Categorize - Bio articles are especially bad (or at least were - awesome work fixing the categorization of the Category:Professional bodybuilders articles (I went to do this today and it was done!) - also we should ensure the geographic bodybuilder subcategories are listed
3. Stubbing - {{Bodybuilding-stub}} is now official - so pages which contain little information need this added
4. Copyrighted images almost every bio page has no image, or, even worse uses a copyrighted image from a magazine which is not being used correctly under the fair use doctrine. These images need to be replaced with a legitimate image (ideally), or removed at this time
5. Formatting The articles do not follow the guidelines of WP:MOS. Small things like External Links instead of External links, lists of titles or shows that use the <br/> code to insert each line instead of a * bullet point format.
6. Consistency Currently the bio pages use completely different styles and terminology. Some will say Bodybuilding titles, others Titles won, Bodybuilding career etc. One template needs to be decided on and used throughout.
7. Complete List of professional bodybuilders - currently Category:Professional bodybuilders is a good place to start as I tried to be thorough when categorising this from the many geographical bodybuilder categories.
8. Expand We need to build articles so they are Wikipedia:Featured article level. Our goal should to promptly built at least one bodybuilding article to featured article status (and no the Arnold article does not count!)
9. New articles To complete the Category:Bodybuilding by writing new articles so the category encompasses all notable subjects within the bodybuilding realm. As you've mentioned, scores of IFBB pro and amateur articles are missing, too many Red links when listing notable shows, and even the articles regarding notable supplements and/or supplement companies.

We should add this under tasks on the main page, and once again great work! - Glen 06:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are categories like Category:Canadian bodybuilders a subcat of Category:Bodybuilding or should the bodybuilding category be added to articles in individual bodybuilders?Skookum1 07:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The categories for bodybuilders from individual countries are subcategories of Category:Bodybuilders, so the bodybuilding and bodybuilders categories should not be added. If a category for the country does not exist, it should be created. There are currently a few individuals in Category:Bodybuilders; they should be moved to the appropriate country subcategory. fbb_fan 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of images

I'm not familiar enough with Wiki image rules to know if there's a limit to an image size; I created Kevin O'Toole (bodybuilder) and it's a big image relative to what else I've seen...smaller pictures don't seem to cut it, but if it has to be reduced what's the max standard/allowable?Skookum1 07:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The best thing is to thumb the image - it should be thumbed to be fairly small, so it doesn't dominate the page. The full image can still be seen by clicking on the thumb. I reduced the size of the thumbnail image a bit. fbb_fan 22:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No. of images

I'm also wondering, given the highly visual nature of bodybuilding/bodybuilders, if more than one, maybe up to three, images per athlete profile might be acceptable; although come to think of it other bios have more than one image. This is not to say pages should be gallery pages, with LOTS of images; just enough to illustrate either different poses, or maybe different shows. I know in the case of the one page I've written so far (Kevin O'Toole) he DOES prefer only his most recent/top-ranked win, but a career is a career; one of my favourite sequences for him is the succession of double-bi shots from the successive shows, thereby showing the improvement in his physique from his novice show to his not-quite-pro card. Just wondering about a standard within WikiProject bodybuilding, as there are other Canadian and Pacific NW bodybuilders I'm ready to contribute pics/articles on (including Aaron Maddron's Mr. Oregon win in '93) and want so guidelines from other project participants; also got some nice guest-posing ones of Sharon Bruneau, by the way...And I think if there are contest pages, class or overall lineup shots/comparisons would be worthwhile (esp. when the judges didn't know what the f**k they were doing)....Skookum1 00:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a reasonable idea, if done with some qualifications:

1. Stating the obvious, but we should avoid copyright violations. Pictures you took yourself are no problem, of course - just be sure to mark them appropriately when you upload them so that nobody tags them for copyright issues.
2. I would avoid multiple pictures if an article is extremely short
3. I think multiple pictures have value in a few cases - showing an athlete's evolving physique over time, showing someone at the time of a big win, possibly if someone pioneered a unique pose, etc.
4. So far at least, we don't have pages on specific contests. For example, there are entries for the Mr. Olympia and Ms. Olympia, but not separate pages for each contest, year by year. So unless / until this changes, it's probably overkill to add group / lineup shots, unless there's something exceptionally notable about them. Also, I suggest treading very lightly when you think the judging was wrong, to be sure to maintain NPOV.

fbb_fan 03:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)