Talk:Climbing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing, a project to systematically present information on climbing. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information)

This article is part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

• Archive 1 (June–October 2006)

[edit] Merging

Okay, I'm going to do it. I'll combine both articles and keep it under Rock CLimbing. Climbign section should be left as general climbing, and only link to Rock climbing. I'll try to finish it today. I'll keep most the content, just combining them both so it's on one page. Vantucci 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Once upon a time, many rewrites ago, this article mentioned ice climbing, tree climbing, and suchlike. It would be nice if this article was a sort of super-disambig that listed the specific types of climbing, then sent readers off the specific types and/or shared topics, such as ropes and belaying. Stan 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This and rock climbing are now in a horribly-mangled situation - history has been lost by doing cut-n-paste instead of proper moves, the link to ice climbing has been lost (what, ice climbing is not a form of climbing?), and there are double redirects everywhere that need fixing. This is going to need some admin intervention, so please everybody, leave these pages alone until I can get them fixed up, then you can go back to randomly rearranging the content. Stan 14:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've begun an attempt to create more of a portal for climbing activities, rather than retaining various redundancies. Along the lines Stan recommends. Change it back if you wish.Silentrunner 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on the changes, but I think they're worth discussing rather than reverting outright. The portal idea seems ok since climbing is a big topic. However, these revisions (12/12 - 12/14) don't lend themselves to a popular culture section or a list of clubs section. That is, I don't find these sections consistent with a portal. On a different note, I thought the previous version did a nice job introducing each topic. Sure its redudant, but it allows the reader could to quickly determine if a given link would take them in the desired direction. After all, if the reader knew in advance they wanted to read about mountaineering, they wouldn't be looking at the climbing article, would they? Rklawton 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the two sections - cultural, clubs - seem awkward here and might be replaced by something more pertinant, more relevant to the general concept of "climbing". However, the initial section with links to various aspects of climbing is what I was after. The previous version simply had way too much redundancy with the rock climbing article, and seemed to be almost exclusively focused on rock climbing (even with the ice climbing photo). And there are additional types of climbing to possibly be added here, as well. E.g., Pole climbing (Lumberjack contests) and possibly a pole climbing for repair purposes, etc. Silentrunner 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Each type ought to have at least a few words describing it, just like a disambiguation page does. Also it's still worth mentioning a little of what some of the varieties have in common, such as the use of a rope for safety. Especially now, so that "roped climbing" is not confused with rope climbing. The list of organizations should perhaps migrate to specific-type pages; although some might then appear in several articles, that's OK by me. Reader interest is likely to progress as generic -> type -> club, not generic -> club -> type , don't make them click backwards. Stan 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My change

I had to remove Vertical Limit being mentioned as a popular film, because it has never been one. It's actually quite the opposite on whatever popular film website you look. --Svetovid 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summaries

I do not believe that we need to include "using the hands and feet" or "using the human body" in each blurb about the different forms of climbing, as it is included in the opening paragraph and should be understood (or stated) that all (or nearly all) forms of climbing use the body of the climber and nothing else other than some specialized tools. We don't need to repeat it in every section. Robogymnast 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)