# Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)

I suggest that the title be that represented in boldface in the lead section, i.e. Cross-country ski competition, and have the title, "Cross-country skiing (sport)" redirect to that. This would also mirror the Cross-country skiing#Competition section. User:HopsonRoad 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with the remodeled introductory words. I also note that it's Cycle sport and Rowing (sport). User:HopsonRoad 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the notion of "Ski marathon", in Norway this type of competition is known as "Ski tour competitions". It is not (only) the distance that distinguishes these from the standard FIS races, but also the profile of the track, competition in various classes etc. For instance in the Birkebeiner race all carry a small backpack, the race is over a mountain pass (unlike FIS/Olympic races that has a more varied track), there are competitions in various age classes (the contest is for the general public as well as for elite skiers). So distance does not capture the essence of such races. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not a big issue, but the discussion of various "gears" in skating confuses definition and consequence: If skating without poles is a part of the definition of the 5th gear, then the highest gear can not at the same time be the reason for not using poles. The text reads "the poles offer negligible added power and are not used for propulsion". This is a matter of logic and clarity. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be clearer to say, "poles are not used for propulsion because they could contribute negligible additional power"? User:HopsonRoad 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
It is still the same content. I was merely trying to point out that there appears to be some kind of underlying tautology. There is a crucial difference between "without poling" as part of the definition of 5th gear, and "without poling" as a likely consequence of 5th gear. Such consequences or results are only probable, hence the words like "often", "usually" or "normally". So, is 5th gear defined as the speed where poles are not used, or is 5th a certain speed (in km/h for instance) where poles are typically not used. This is not clear from the way it is now presented. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Note that "Gear" is in parentheses—it is an analogy. The terms in the other two columns are the terms and their definitions. User:HopsonRoad 16:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, no I am not referring to the notion of "gear" but the definition of the five levels. If poles are by definition never used at 5th gear, then it actually does not make sense to say they are not used because they do not add power, this is a kind of circular reasoning. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Not even to explain why? User:HopsonRoad 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I used the source text, which may solve the conundrum. Note that this is different from the table in the Norsk bokmål version. User:HopsonRoad 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

There is of course a need to explain why poles are not used, my point is simply that the explanation must be independent of the notion of 5th gear (to avoid circular reasoning, circular reasoning does not really add information). From the current text it is not clear why athletes don't use poles at the highest "gear". Why don't poles add to propulsion? Perhaps at a certain speed poles are not useful? --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I rearranged wikidata links. This article is now connected to Langrenn in Norwegian and Långdåkning in Swedish. The German language article appears to deal with XC skiing in general. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor works (pamphlets, web sites, etc.) have titles in quotation marks per MOS:TITLEQUOTES. Major works (books, television shows, movies, works of music, etc.) have italicized titles per WP:MOSTITLE. One can see this pattern in the Reference section, as well. User:HopsonRoad 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TITLEQUOTES allows a little latitude. In this article quotation marks are being used for three things: titles, quotations, and "jargon", and this--combined with frequent use of long sentences and em dashes mixed with commas--reduces readability. --Cornellier (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
What about non-english words such as "langrenn" or "Langlauf"? --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
MOS:FOREIGN says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English."  --Cornellier (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
My feeling about MOS:TITLEQUOTES is that, if the citation shows in quotes in the Reference section, it should show the same way in the text. Likewise for references that show up as italics. User:HopsonRoad 23:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I have linked some X-C techniques to credible "how-to" videos, per WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues [my emphasis],[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons [my emphasis]." It seems to me that video demonstrates what's being described in a manner that still images cannot. User:HopsonRoad 14:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't find links that allow me to read:

Hallbert, F.; Mueckenbruenn, H. (1936), Le Ski Par la Technique Moderne. (The Complete Book of Skiing) (in English translation by Brian Lunn), Edward Arnold, p. 317{{citation}}:  CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
Editors. "Worldoppet Anniversary Book". Worldoppet Ski Federation. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
The International Skiing History Association has a useful bibliography at: 

Allen, E. John B. (2013). "Ski Bibliography—ISHA's Guide to Ski-History Reference Works Worldwide". International Skiing History Association. Retrieved 2015-01-05.
User:HopsonRoad 15:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Erik den yngre and Cornellier, I'm on board with the explication of Norwegian terms to explain history, but I find it odd to have a column on skate-skiing terminology for Norwegian. Why not Finnish, Swedish or Russian? I feel that it isn't value added to the English-speaking reader. Also, I'm concerned that quite a few statements, especially in the Marathon section use references in Norwegian that can't be inspected or read further in by an English speaker. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Understand your concern, Refs in Norwegian is of course not ideal in English WP, but is acceptable if the best sources are in Norwegian (on Norwegian WP we use lots of foreign language sources, Swedish, Danish and English of course, some German and French, but even Russian). I agree that the column on Norwegian terminology was a stretch. A comparison I think is useful as this kind of specialised terminology is not covered in ordinary dictionaries. The language of football and tennis is English, the language of XC is Norwegian/Swedish and perhaps Finish. --— Erik Jr. 23:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts, there, Erik den yngre. However, we have our own words for skiing terms in English, which are in the table. We are unacquainted with the Norwegian words, which makes me feel that I'm just reading curious facts, not ones that are central to the article. Were it up to me, I would remove the Norwegian column. As to refs, I'd rather use websites where one can read the rules for marathons than use a dictionary, which is not on line. User:HopsonRoad 04:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Note also that because WP:Verify says, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I don't feel that we meet the anyone criterion with a Norwegian encyclopedia that is not on line. It also says, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I would like to work harder at the English sources. User:HopsonRoad 04:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps better remove the column I added, not the best ideas I had. But still perhaps mention in the text that the basic "gears" in skating are called gears in other languages too but with different labels. --— Erik Jr. 08:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that online sources better supports the verifiability criterion. The Norwegian encyclopedia is online (scanned), and by providing exact reference (page number etc) I think that is sufficiently verifiable. I also agree that English language sources are prerable for the EN wiki. That may on the other create a bias if sources in other languages give a better globale perspective. Sources in other languages may also be more reliable. As a general comment I am not perfectly comfortable with web pages as sources, pages can change and disappear, a book in the library does not. Best regards --— Erik Jr. 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for these two thoughts, Erik den yngre. The column wasn't a bad idea—I enjoyed seeing the fact that Norwegians "paddle" and "dance"—it just didn't seem central to a GA article nominee. If you could post a link to the scanned version of the encyclopedia here, that would make me very happy. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have kept the terminology comparison in the no-wiki article. Idrettsleksikon (encyclopedia), only from Norwegian IPs it seems, sorry. The National library has scanned some 1/2 million books, but some limits on use. — Erik Jr. 15:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Another thought: The descriptions of classifications really apply more broadly than just marathon events. We might consider a section on Non-FIS racing that would include school and university competition and citizen races. I feel that we should leave only the Worldloppet-sourced items in the marathon section and hold onto the other thoughts for future development in such a new section. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. Still I think that the heading "marathon" (and definition) is a bit misleading. Traditional cross-country races are 30 or 50 km, also for elite races. The way I understand it: these races are not necessarily much longer than FIS or elite races, but they are open to the public, "citizen races", and competition is within classes, and it is a "tour" (a trip from A to B) not just round a closed circuit. --— Erik Jr. 15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
For English speakers, "marathon" is the word commonly applied to point-to-point races of 40K and longer. User:HopsonRoad 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I've set up a sandbox at the top of this page, where we can develop the section without messing up the article, prematurely. User:HopsonRoad 15:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Then I guess "marathon" is the right word, but still it is important to explain the difference between "turrenn"/marathon open to the public (with 10,000 participants or more) and elite races. I dont think it is the 40 km that defines this type of race, some Worldloppet Ski Federation are indeed shorter. There is also a greater variety of tracks and rules, for instance the Birkebeinerrace everybody have to carry a rucksack at 3,5 kg (like a baby). Birkebeinerrace is long uphill then a long downhill, Vasaloppet is relatively flat. --— Erik Jr. 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The "marathon" part comes from the length; a true marathon is 42.2 km. User:HopsonRoad 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cross-country skiing (sport). 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/20140206145930/http://nordic.usskiteam.com/sites/default/files/documents/athletics/nordic/2011-12/documents/XC%20Athlete%20Competencies.pdf to http://nordic.usskiteam.com/sites/default/files/documents/athletics/nordic/2011-12/documents/XC%20Athlete%20Competencies.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thesnowpros.org/Portals/0/Cache/Pages/PSIA_XC_Standards%202012_FINAL_6.4.14.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.nensa.net/organizers/resources/USSA/USSATechnicalManual.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I've always felt that the title of this article was awkward and doesn't lend itself to a smooth lead sentence. I suggest that the article be named Cross-country ski competition (which currently is a redirect) and the lead sentence be: "Cross-country ski competition encompasses a variety of race formats and course lengths." I look forward to your input. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. --— Erik Jr. 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Support per nom. Parentheses are especially awkward in a title. --Cornellier (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
This should have been posted at WP:Requested moves (I can do it post-hoc if you wish). While I'm not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation either, I don't see a better alternative to the current title. "Cross-country ski competition" strongly implies a single event, rather than the sport as a whole. "Competitive cross-country skiing" has an informal feel to it. We already have similar situations in Swimming vs. Swimming (sport); Aquaplaning vs. Aquaplaning (sport); Sailing vs. Sailing (sport); Rowing vs. Rowing (sport). No such user (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the deletion of the section about health risks.
1.)
The first part wasn't about eating disorders, so the reason for the deletion does not fit.
2.)
The eating disorders became a regular problem, so its worth mentioning. When it has nothing to do with the sport, we should say the same about doping. This is also not the athletic activity itself, but a (not permitted) part of preparing for it. And the nutrition, because of energy supply / the demand of energy, is an important and legal part of preparation. But wrong nutriton in combination with the energy supply and maybe psychological effects result in this problem. The people, who suffered from it or worried about, express the amount of the whole situation, so its obvious to bring them in.
The section would clearly be wrong in the article „cross-country skiing“, but it fits definitely into the article about the sport.
3.)
Please excuse mistakes, but they are no reason to delete a whole section.
User HopsonRoad is regularly involved into this topic and therefore he might feel personally insulted, but that's definitely not what i wanted to do. Its just about the problem itself. Mommpie (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions and thank you for bringing this discussion to a talk page, Mommpie! Of course, mistakes are easily forgiven and corrected. My primary concern was that, in a section about the health risks of competitive cross-country skiing, eating disorders should not be the only topic, it should include safety topics, as well, e.g. types of injuries that elite skiers experience. If there are no other health risks in the literature, then I suggest adding a short paragraph on eating disorders in the training section. As to mentioning each afflicted skier, that seems to give Wikipedia:UNDUE weight to them; you could mention the number of skiers that have reported problems. However, that number is minuscule compared to the body of competitive skiers. HopsonRoad (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)
Hello HopsonRoad and thanks a lot for your nice answer. My suggestion is to have a short section "health risks" with the first sentence I had before and some more informations about injuries - I recently found an article about the topic. The body weight problem could be introduced into the "training"-section and summarized. Neverless it should be acceptable to name one or two very significant cases, for example Vibeke Skofterud. Firstly because she as a prominent athlete suffered from anorexia and in the second place because, according to Marit Bjørgen, the whole problem generally became relevant when Skofterud was on top.
Let's wait a bit, maybe other users have some alternative ideas. Goodbye, your Mommpie (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mommpie. It would be more informative, if there were statistics on what percentage of athletes are affected. Highlighting a few notable examples does not demonstrate that the risks arise from the sport to a greater extent than cycling, marathon running, track, etc. or whether certain people are susceptible to eating disorders in many sports, independently of the nature of the sport that they engage in. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)