Talk:Show jumping

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Show jumping article.
Article policies
WikiProject Equine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale
Sports icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Sports and games Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of low priority for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Sports To-do:


Contents

[edit] levels, types of competition, etc.

Could someone add a breakdown of various levels like cSIA(amateur) or CSIW, CSIP, etc.? French Wikipedia has this although not a complete list of all the types/levels. A full list would be most helpful! Oh also, can anyone explain the 1m40,1m35, etc.? Is this a reference to the distance of a concourse? like 1m40 = 1.40 meter? Thanks! --Ashley Rovira 19:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ya, ok, i cant let you discuss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.105.242 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2006

There is separate article for hyphenated show-jumping. Can I suggest somebody who knows about the subject should try to combine the two articles into one.

To anonymous, I listed the pages at Wikipedia:Duplicate articles also. Rmhermen 18:49, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

Technically this article is about Jumping in general, of which Show Jumping is one variety. Equitation and Hunter is even listed here. It's an important disinction since Jumping really does refer to all three, unfortunately its obviously an ambiguous term. Any suggestions as to a more succinct term which is still correct in the Equestrian world? --Domhail 09:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gem Twist

I know nothing about horses but when browsing this category and I clicked on Gem Twist's article. Previously it said this "Gem Twist Was the most famous of all show jumping horses. He was a German horse that was the first Stallion to complete a jump over 8ft high. He was a legend that lives on in many peoples hearts." While that may be true it's lacking a lot of information (not to mention oozing Point of View)! I added some basic information to the Gem Twist article and added the format that the other show jumping horse articles seem to have, but like I said it's lacking a lot of information. If you can fill this out please do so. -ImmortalGoddezz 06:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV Problem

The original article included the phrase "and the sheer spectacularity and thrill that no other sport can even come close to producing," in refernece to its popularity as an Olympic sport. While this may be true for those who are interested in or participate in equine sports, I feel it shows too much POV to be included. I've edited it out, but I'm open to discussion if someone can show otherwise. Consequentially 19:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laundry list elimination?

Might I propose we eliminate the "laundry list" of famous jumpers altogether? As you may have noticed, it is getting longer and longer, with plenty of room for disagreement.

In the alternative, I suggest someone creates a CATEGORY of "Show Jumpers" --or some similar title, link to it from this article, and then all show jumpers who have articles about them on wikipedia can be linked there instead of here.

My humble opinion is that most of the horse articles with these kinds of lists need to get rid of them both due to NPOV issues but also to fit the guidelines for a good wikipedia article. Comments? Montanabw 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with taking them off the Show jumping article. Have you not seen the category Showjumping horses witch these horses are already in!! As for getting 'rid' of them full stop, you would have to get 'rid' of the jockeys/riders as well, as the rider does not win Gold medals on his/her own. This is 'Wiki' they can be edited.

Culnacréann 23:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant just in the show jumping article, not everywhere. Not paid much attention to the category, actually. OK, so if I just toss out the whole list just in the show jumping article, does someone already have them listed elsewhere with appropriate links? Just don't want to mess up something in my haste to make things neat and tidy! <grin> Montanabw 06:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Categories: Famous horses & Showjumping horses are the only categories that link to Show jumping horses. Not all the show jumping horses were on the Show jumping page. Show jumping horses can be found by the Show jumping cat. link at the bottom of the Show jumping article. Culnacréann 16:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess that means it's OK for me to toss the laundry list in this article. If I messed up something, just fix it. Montanabw 20:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Get it together, gang

Eventer and Culnacreann, I think you two are each putting in the rules for your own nation (i.e. US and Ireland/UK). How about just doing the FEI 2007 official rules and then split off sections for the varying rules for each nation, when different? And may I humbly suggest that CITATION to the actual rulebooks just might be the best long-term approach here? Montanabw(talk) 02:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

IMHO, I think you overdid the tags on show jumping. The article does lack footnotes, but there ARE reference works. It does need a rewrite to be less confusing, perhaps, and I will be the first to agree it is far from GA status, but there have been some experienced riders working on the article, the "expert" tag doesn't seem appropriate, and I really don't see significant original research in there, either. (A lot of horse knowledge is, to this day, transmitted word of mouth and is widely known yet rarely published in books) My thought is if you question material, slapping a "fact" tag on the questionable statements is preferable to an overall tag. My point is simply that a bunch of tags without any explanation is not going to improve this article much. (The original creator of the article IS pretty prone to not cite anything, even thougah I KNOW she's using references; I've mentioned this to her in the past, and have been ignored, so I'm OK with the "no footnotes" tag) It would be more helpful to tag it in specific trouble areas, keep the "confusing" tag if you wish, but place your specific concerns on the talk page. Montanabw(talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is not apparent to an experienced editor that the article is backed up by verifiable reliable sources, then it won't be apparent to a casual reader. The article reads more like a fan piece than a scientific article, and while word of mouth may be passing true information, it does NOT meet the Wikipedia policies regarding verifiability and neutrality. If the editor of most fo tose articles is using references but refusing to cite, honestly, start removing her additions until she learns. Ignoring corrections from other editors repeatedly regarding a core element of Wikipedia shouldn't be allowed to continue. The entire article needs clean up and overhaul from an expert in the field who also is well versed in properly writing and formatting an article for Wikipedia and the applicable policies and guidelines. (Copied here from my talk page to address the request to list the concerns here). Collectonian (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. No, I am not going to remove accurate material considered generally known knowledge just because it lacks a footnote. I'll wordsmith it, if I happen to have a good source for things I add, I try to footnote as I go because it's easier than footnoting later, but other people need to pull their share of the load. In the case of the individual in question, she has made extraordinary contributions to the horse articles here and put in countless hours, she knows her material; if she isn't good about digging a book out of the library that verifies what anyone in the field will verify if you ask, well, I may toss in a few cites when I get around to it, but it needs to get in my "rehab this article" queue and wait its turn--at the moment, I can think of five others ahead of it that are in more trouble than this one. I've edited three articles up to GA status, coached a fourth and am thinking about putting up a fifth, but it was a lot of work and I really cannot pull the whole wagon here.
Are a few footnotes and two additional overall references is meaningless? Are you one of those people who feel that if there is not a footnote after every single paragraph that an article is unverifiable? I ask this sincerely, as upon reviewing your contribution list it appears you are not a horse person and this particular article isn't really a beginner's topic. I mean, I find Cryptographic hash function to be incomprehensible gibberish, but then, I am not a computer programmer or a cryptographer and wouldn't be starting there if what I was trying to learn more about basic cryptography. I am also concerned about the "expert" tag because some of the people who worked on this article are probably "experts" on the topic, in that they do know what they are talking about and Wikipedians remain anonymous and don't file resumes. You are correct that sometimes "expert in the field" and "experienced wikipedian" are not always one and the same and I don't disagree that the article is one of many in wikipedia that was written by a committee and suffers from some disorganization.
I think what I am going to do is tone down the tags a bit. See if you find my modifications acceptable. It is a good thing to draw editor attention to an article that needs improvement, it is another to imply that the content is not accurate, which I think this series of tags did. Montanabw(talk) 06:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)