Talk:Climbing/Archive 1

message: This article is a complete mishmash of loosely-related information that tries to do too many things at once. It looks as if it has grown organically from a definition-type stub, with no attempt to produce a coherent article. It ought to be split into an article specifically on climbing as a discipline of mountaineering (encompassing sub-disciplines such ice climbing and bouldering), with a decent introductory paragraph, and a separate article (possibly a disambiguation page) mopping up other activities like tree climbing that have nothing to do with mountaineering or rock climbing. Anyone coming here for information about climbing at the moment is going to be thoroughly confused by the multitude of links and lack of clear information, and would be forgiven for thinking that climbing is primarily a competitive sport.
Do other people agree?
Not being much of a climber myself I'm not sure I'd be the best person to attempt a rewrite, though I suppose I will if no-one else does. -- Blisco 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I see the same problems. This is the dismbiguation page covering the whole big topic. We do have subarticles on specific kinds of rock climbing, mountaineering, etc. But I'm sure the organization can be better. The competition stuff belongs in the sport climbing article, for instance. Let's see what we can do to make sure the topic is covered cogently. -Will Beback 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but it's not a disambiguation page - well, it may fulfil that kind of role, but it deviates in almost every respect from MoS:DP. I can't find any article that gives an overview of the sport as a whole, let alone the history and development of climbing (which is well documented and quite important in an article like this). Ideally there should be sections on the main types of climbing which summarise and link to the "main article". There must be plenty of books out there which follow much the same kind of format; it shouldn't be too difficult to find a few and use them as references. -- Blisco 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, it's not a formal DP, just a functional one. If you have a plan go for it. I'll help and fill in whatever I can. -Will Beback 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, we can work on the outline here. Since this article needs major work, creating the outline first would give us a plan for action. -Will Beback 08:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A complete mess 

message: OK, I've written a new opening paragraph that hopefully summarises the basics and should give pointers as to what to develop in the article. There are various ways we could proceed: perhaps chronologically, with the history section first, explaining the development of climbing techniques and practises; then sections on types of climbing, and grading (really need some more balance here, with summaries of all the international systems, linked to the main article). Or it might be better to start with an overview of rock climbing, moving on to sub-disciplines like trad, sport, Deep-water soloing etc., with the history following on from that. A potential problem is the fact that there are different methods of categorisation which overlap.
I've cut out bits that have nothing to do with rock-climbing. I don't think these bits really have a place in any article - they look rather like an extended game of word association - but I'm putting them below in case they could usefully be incorporated somewhere. Blisco 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Start of rewrite

message: ;Climbing animals
Many animals have developed excellent climbing techniques. Some animals, such as geckoes, can walk up and down vertical walls and even walk on ceilings without any problems. But some other animals have the same problem as humans in that climbing down is more difficult than climbing up, because backwards movements are required. The best known example are cats, which have to be rescued sometimes from trees, because they cannot climb down from them.
;Climbing in popular culture
Climbing also has importance in some festivals. The best known festivals in which climbing plays an important role are technoparades, especially loveparade.  In these parades, it is very common to climb on trees, street lamps, portable restrooms and other large objects.  Climbing is also common during streetparade in Zurich and reincarnation in Hannover, although security staff and policemen pay close attention to climbers, since injuries and property damage have occurred in the past.Blisco 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to do a major rewrite on this page.  Hope I don't step on anyones feelings.  I am new at this. I am going to put this here while I figure out how to make a new page for it.Thinredline 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You can create a new article by saving creating a "red link". Climbing competition, for example. If you click on it you can start editing. -Will Beback 08:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted bits

message: The "Getting started" section isn't appropriate. Wikipedia's job is to describe, not to give instructions. See WP:NOT. Our sister project, Wikibooks, is set up to handle instruction manuals. -Will Beback 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting started 

message: Re: the "solo climbing" category
Google "solo climbing"
All the references beside the ones that come back here are in regards to free soloing or mountaineering by yourself.  (there are two other: rc.com(idiots) and one from the manufacturer of the "soloist")
:The term as you guys use it is not in any of the climbing glossaries that I have reviewed. (6or7 so far)  
:So where did it come from?  From someone not really knowing what the terms mean?
Therefore (assuming you cannot find sources for the above or that ou don't like the idea of creating new definitions)
Give roped solo it's own page.  There are numerous variations ie aid solo, unroped aid solo, simul aid solo, etc
:Move the soloing info to the already established Free solo climbing
;Will: if you agree could you change the redirect for free soloing from solo climbing to Free solo climbing
Thinredline 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposals 

message: This article has improved a lot since I labelled it "a complete mess" above - thanks to everyone who's worked on it. However, it now strikes me as very US-centric, particularly in the history and grading sections (with the notable exception of the main photo), which is why I added a . Is there anyone out there with experience of climbing in Britain/the Alps etc. who can help correct this? -- Blisco 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far most of the UK perspective is mostly on off topic controversies.  We need a focused section on ethical differences and regional approaches to the different forms of climbing.  Standards, jargon, etc are all different Thinredline 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalise tag 

message: Who cut off the bottom of the article?  Silentrunner 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you document an instance of a lead fall being held?  The typical climbs in the area as at the time involved 450 foot dead vertical fist, offwidth and squeeze chimneys.  This was with 80ft ropes.  the commonly accepted date for modern belaying concepts being introduce to the western us was in the 1930's by underhill in the sierra bulletin. (well documented) don't know anything about the grades edits Thinredline 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Bottom, Saxony, Grades, etc 

message: Hey Silentrunner,  I remember reading, probably on your site that using the glued in belay pins as lead pro was prohibited by the original standards.  I also seem to recall that threading the rope through the "pin" required untying from the rope....
Thinredline 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to climbing 

message: The history section is getting a bit long for a main article - would be better to have a History of climbing that can do elaborate timelines and such. Appropriate length here is 2-3 short paragraphs, similar to what is done for country articles. Similarly for issues of technique; a reader coming in knowing nothing of climbing isn't going to want to get sunk into minutiae like "red pointing" vs "hangdogging" - we have a whole category of climbing articles that have plenty of room for that level of detail. In this case sport climbing seems most appropriate, nothing about the specialized terms there.
(And please, sign all of your additions here! Very confusing to try to figure out what's being discussed without them.) Stan 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: It seems to me that the deal is you do not like volunteers that actually know what they are talking about.  Because it makes you look bad?? So you guys fall back on what you think your good at. being wikipedians??? not.  Do you really think that being in wiki form is more important then being reasonably correct?
So at this point I need to find out if I need to delete all of the stuff that I am not prepared to document in the way that you want.  You guys seem to think that I am responsible for correcting any mistakes that you guys decide ou want to pick on. not
Obviously if posting something like cassin on the walker.  Forgive me for thinking that many people could elaborate on one of the most famous climbs in the world put up by one of the most famous climbers in the world who has one of the largest climbing companies in europe named after him and also happenned to have put up the most famous technical mountaneering route in the united states.  Who would know anthing about that.
BTW the assertion I made about a certain persons knowledge level is one of the easier things on this site to document.
ps. you wouldn't be doing me a dis-service by banning me from the site.
I don't like to be pissed off.
 ps This is official notification that I am filing a "RFC" over the abusive and annoying behavior of the admin in context of my time and contributions here   Thinredline 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification needed 

message: Since you obviously don't get it.  The point was and is that their is a lot of misinformation on this site in relation to climbing.  Lot's of work to do.  So why is will so bored that he has nothing better to do then to keep bugging someone that obviously seems to know what he is talking about???  I love all the sentiments of who cares if the difinitions are wrong in the climbing glossary and what does that have to do with the climbing page anyway?  Great stuff.
Here is a funny thing.  I care what is written about rockclimbing on this site.  Being able to make an effort in ensuring that this site reflects the truth about rockclimbing is something I am willing to fight for.  This isn't the first time I have run into ego's and politics on the internet in regards rockclimbing.  The biggest problem to date has been dishonesty.  We will see where you guy end up on that scale.   Thinredline 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re bliscos comment 

message: How about a fresh restart? People who know the subject, add what you know. People who know where a fact tag should go can add it. People who know where the sources are can add them. No volunteer is required to do tasks they don't care to do. On the other hand, unsourced assertions will eventually be sourced or deleted. Let's make more progress. I know nothing about rock climbing but I love to learn and I'm good at looking things up on the internet. Maybe I can help. WAS 4.250 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A fresh restart

message: Whats the wiki way to format the sources at the bottom of the history page?  Thinredline 06:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Citing sources tells you all you need to know. See also Wikipedia:Footnotes, which explains the system WAS 4.250 is using. BTW I really am working on a rewrite in narrative form, so I suggest leaving off adding more references until after I've finished it. -- Blisco 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: There is no common bouldering grading technique in current use; however, in the 1950's boulderer John Gill devised a B1 through B3 grade where B1 would cover easier boulder moves, B2 would indicate extreme difficulty (a climb or series of moves that is on the cutting edge of climbing). The B3 grade was reserved for climbs that were done only once.  If a B3 climb was repeated, it then became the standard for B2.  
The B-Scale never caught on beyond the US, and with the newer, open-ended V-Scale developed in the early 1990s in Hueco Tanks, the B-Scale has fallen out of use.  The B-Scale is sometimes still mentioned in association with classic problems that John Gill developed. A few exceptional boulderers have used personal three-level scales somewhat similar to Gill's B-scale (Jim Holloway, Klem Loskot, etc)
The V-Scale - devised by John Sherman - grades boulder problems in ascending numerical order, the easiest grade being V0 (roughly 5.10a), and the current hardest, confirmed, grade being V16.
Thinredline 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bouldering grades 

message: This article is definitely getting better. Just one important point (this applies especially to history and techniques): remember you are not writing for climbers, but for a general audience who may not know anything about climbing. So technical terms like jam and smear need to be explained first of all; you can then go into specifics (though technical discussions are better done in the specific subtopic articles).
A related point that I meant to make about the history above: I reckon (remember this is only my personal opinion) that it should concentrate on development of techniques, styles, equipment etc., and should avoid mentioning specific routes and grades as far as possible. A general audience won't know anything about these routes and won't understand the grading system, but will be interested in what climbers actually do and since when. This will help address the regional bias, since techniques and styles in principle apply worldwide (though obviously with variations according to region and/or rock type).
Right, I'll shut up now - I'll be away from Wikipedia for a few weeks probably, so that's my final input for a while. --Blisco 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remember your audience 

message: This artice seems to be about a type of Mountaineering that I would call Sport climbing but that term is already taken. Maybe we should move it to a new title? Climbing as an encyclopedia article should include nonhuman climbing as well as non-sportmanship climbing (military, industrial, agricultural). WAS 4.250 00:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, this article used to have a token amount of material on the broader topic of climbing, . A more specific term that covers the current topic would be "Rock climbing". -Will Beback 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would exclude ice climbing and indoor climbing. Blisco 09:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ice climbing isn't really covered in this article now anyway. Indoor climbing is generally considered a variation of rock climbing, which it siimulates. -Will Beback 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend this article be moved to Rock climbing. WAS 4.250 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, there's precious little you can write about "climbing" that's general enough to carry all those meanings. It would end up being a disambiguation page. I guess the biggest problem is that ice climbing and climbing on buildings are very closely related to other forms of rock climbing but aren't, technically, "rock climbing". Anyway, I'm going to be bold and move this article (if possible) to rock climbing, and see if anyone has any objections. Stevage 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by your contributions as a whole and this example, I'm guessing that you've taken on a classification overhaul that will take a week or two. Good luck! WAS 4.250 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was actually the tail-end of a huge cleanup of :Category:Climbing. My idea is to put everything in that thematic category ("stuff related to climbing") into a taxonomic subcategory (climbing techniques, types of climbing, climbing equipment, climbing knots, climbing areas...). There's a few still without good subcategories though. Stevage 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sportsmanship climbing? Sheer climbing? Rock climbing?

message: I will take a shot at the history section in the way you want it. Thanks Blisco for the helpful feedback.  Thinredline 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I fixed it. WAS 4.250 18:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: This is looking a lot better. Thanks, Trl, for your efforts. Silentrunner 20:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking Good

message: :A Slender Thread by Steven Venables
:Annapurna. by Maurice Herzog
:Ascent edited by Steve Roper 
:Bergsteigen: Basic Rock Climbing  by R.C. Aleith 
:Big walls John Long
:Camp 4  Steve Roper
:Chis Jones, Climbing in North America
:Climb: stories of survival  Clint Willis
:Climber's Choice  Pat Ament
:Climbing  training for peak performance clyde soles
:Climbing Anchors John Long 
:Climbing Everest  Pat Ament
:Conquistadors Of The Useless  by Lionel Terray 
:Deborah, Mountain of My Fear Dave Roberts 
:Everest:Alone on the Summit by Stephen Venables
:Gorilla Monsoon John Long
:Greg Child's Over The Edge
:High Exposure  David Breashears
:High Exposure David Breshears 
:How to Rockclimb  John Long  
:In the zone: epic survival…. peter potterfield
:Into Thin Air Jon Krakauer 
:Jerry Kucuzka's
:John Gill: Master of Rock by Pat Ament
:K2 Triumph and Tragedy Jim Curran
:Kiss or kill   Mark twight
:Lonely Challenge by Hermann Buhl
:Lonely Victory Peter Habler 
:Lynn Hill's Climbing Free 
:Mirrors in the cliffs   ed by jim perrin
:Moments of doubt   roberts
:More climbing anchors John Long
:Mountaineering Freedom of the hills
:Mountains of My Life by Walter Bonati
:One Man's Mountain  Patey
:Regions of the heart   rose/douglas
:Reinhold Messner
:Rock jocks, wall rats and hang dogs  Long
:Rock Junction Long
:Royal Robbins: spirit of the age  Ament
:Scrambles Amongst the Alps by Edward Whymper
:Seven Years in Tibet by Heinrich Harrer
:Sherman exposed
:Starlight and Storm Gaston Rebuffat 
:Stone Crusade.John Sherman
:The Armchair Mountaineer
:The Best of Rock and Ice an anthology  Macdonald
:The Boardman Tasker Omnibus. Peter Boardman and Joe Tasker 
:The Breach
:The Climb  Anatoli Boukreev 
:The Duke of the Abruzzi; an Explorers Life by Mirella Tenderini 
:The Games Climbers Play Lito Tejada Flores 
:Extreme alpinism marc twight
:The Quotable Climber  Jonathan Waterman
:The Spell of the Rockies by Enos Mills
:The Vertical World of Yosemite  Galen Rowell
:This Game Of Ghosts Joe Simpson 
:Touching my fathers soul by Jamling Tenzing Norgay
:Touching the Void Joe Simpson 
:True Summit by Roberts
:walter bonatti's
:White Spider by Heinrich Harrer
:Wizards of rock: A history of free climbing in America, Pat Ament
What!! No "A Short Walk in The Hindu Kush" by Eric Newby?? or "The Hard Years" by Joe Brown Paul venter 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography (Climbing)

message: Um'm most of those links violate the site principles for external links.  Ie they are either sites like this one looking for people to add info.  Or they are commercial sites pretending to be community forums.  There are some good sites on the internet with fairly reliable info. My guess is most of them were added by the sites themselves or someone that isn't familiar with the sites themselves.
:If no one objects, I am going to trash most of them and add a few more reliable ones.
: Also, isn't there a better name for link then Further reading?  Thinredline 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Further reading" is an excellent name for pages that simply add further information for someone wanting to go into more detail. As distinct from "Sources" when the links represent sites we're basing our article on. Generally a good idea to trash any links that don't contain decent quality, fairly extensive information. Stevage 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Reading Section

message: I see Marceo put a redirect to rock climbing at the top of the page.  This doesn't make sense.  Maybe rock climbing is a subtopic of climbing, but this article shouldn't just be chucked. --Slashme 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not Rock climbing, Rock Climbing. The first is a redirect here, the second is a (presumably unintentional) content fork created by Marceo on 8 September. It's not a bad initial attempt - I might go so far as to say that in some respects it's better than the mess we've got here - so I've added merge tags in the hope that the best bits might be combined from both articles. --Blisco 18:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inappropriate redirect to "rock climbing" 

message: Talk:Rock Climbing already has some discussion on this subject. Rwxrwxrwx 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merging

message: 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)
thread_title: My change

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summaries 

message: I question the addition here of a particular goal of mountain climbing. If someone removes this entry I will not object. And the reference to some individual supposedly prominent in this sport is not appropriate. Do an article on this aspect of mountaineering and put such info there.Aztecgirl 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it inappropriate? It is normal to add details of individuals who introduced particular activities and to move it out to another article when the section gets large. That has not happened here. I am not going to revert your edit as I am not active on this article but I support the reverting of the removal of the information about the individual. --Bduke 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I've heard of people trying to achieve a number of summits in a limited time, I've never heard of "mountain speed climbing" per se. Do we have a source for it?  ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The individual whose name appeared most certainly did not create this aspect of mountaineering. Climbers have been doing this sort of thing for many years. For example, in 1939 Holyoke and Hawkes set a speed record for the Grand Teton - 5 hr 22min round trip from beginning of trail - that endured for some time. Independent observers verified this record. More recently, records are regularly set and beaten for the "Grand Traverse" in the same range. Hence, I recommend against citing him as was done originally in this entry.Aztecgirl 07:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No problem with that. --Bduke 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mountain speed climbing

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether :Portal:Climbing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Portal:Climbing]] for deletion 

message: With the number of climbing methods listed in this article, I feel there is a lack of explanation of their uses or the history behind them. Many of these different methods of climbing have their own origin stories and there were many mistakes and lessons learned between all of them. I feel that only defining the types of climbing and giving a short description of them does not give the reader an idea of how diverse these methods can be. Eliotwilliams10 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specify more detail