Talk:Parkour/Archive 3

message: Has anybody checked out the validity of what's written in the George Hébert article? There aren't any references posted, and I can't find any other info on the web.
Cloneboy 16:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: George Hébert

message: i just want to point out that there´s a really brief parkour like scene in a recent madonna video (hung up) and that the video game "marc ecko: contents under pressure" features a lot of parkour like movement as well, it would be nice if someone would include these facts in the article. i would´ve edited it myself but i´m somewhat lazy and haven´t got that much confidence in my english.
(84.44.130.79 07:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As it is unaesthetically minded, it is parkour. Incidentally, it was Sebastien Foucon as the guy Bond is chasing. Benhudson4 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More parkour in the media

message: I'm not sure I get the history of these two terms. --Gbleem 14:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parkour and Free running 

message: Although I agree that Urban Freeflow is not the most important parkour community on the internet, it still IS a community. So technically there is no harm in directing people to the website at all.
Look at the Kendo page, there are pointers to multiple federations based on the internet. As long as the link is not promoting Urban Freeflow in any way, what's the harm of directing people to it?
Please let me know if I have misread some sort of information or if I have offended anyone. Thanks
- Bug —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buggytoast (talk • contribs) 06:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bug. Don't worry, no harm or offence caused. However there are a few reason why the UF link isn't appropriate for this article. Firstly, we can't have a link for every Parkour community in the world, as the list would be massive and dwarf the article. Doing so would also go against suggested Wikipedia guidelines. Have a read of the pages Wikipedia:External links and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files for more information on this. I would say that the number of link in the Kendo article is far too great, but I guess the editors of that article don't mind it. Secondly, linking to UF specifically is frowned upon because they are a commercial website, and many believe that they falsely represent Parkour (by inclusion of tricks). But the main issue is that the number of external links should be kept to an absolute minimum, and should only include sites that expand on the article's content. i.e. Sites that further explain what Parkour is, not just community sites. -- David Scarlett(Talk) 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Freeflow 

message: I removed the "English Moves" sections because it isn't needed and is incorrect info. There are official names for the movements and they are already listed, in a horrible way though. This entire article is shit and needs to be rewritten.
:OOOO language! Drizzt Jamo 23:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English moves 

message: The article has improved immensly of late. There is however one remaining issue. Whilst it is true that we do now have a much needed seperate article on free running, that article is very incomprehensive. The problem is that there is still too much content relating to free running in this [the parkour] article. The quotes from Sebastian Foucan were made at the time when the term free running was coined as an English language alternative for parkour. Unfortunatley, since then the two have come to have different meanings. Therefore, in the interests of clarity, all references to free running except those citing it as a similar but seperate art need to be removed. That means that nearley the entire of the opening of the "What is parkour?" section must be scrapped. Furthermore, so must the opening paragraph of the History section. I am reluctant to make these changes until I have replacement content prepared as they will, if merely erased rather than replaced, leave considerable gaps in the article.
Also, I'm sick of the link spam this article recieves. I urge people to stop adding links to local sites etc., Wikipedia is not the place for this. Only resources that offer content that expands upon and adds to the content of this article belongs here and in accordance to wiki guidelines, these should be kept to a minimum. It is my belief that Parkour.net is the only site that truely belongs in this catergory. However, I can see cases for keeping World Wide Jam definatley and also to a lesser extent, American Parkour. The directory is of course, useful and should remain. I will tidy the links up once again but I think there is a reasonable argument for that section of the article to be given vandal protection. Oh and also, I cleared up some vandalism where someone replaced David Belle's name with another in the "What is parkour section".
:I disagree on "all references to free running except those citing it as a similar but seperate art need to be removed," because the two disciplines are historically linked.  Free running, if I have understood it correctly, started as the addition of tricking to parkour, and grew from there.  If the physical differences are the result of philosophical differences (parkour is efficient, while free running looks cool), a section on the differences between the two may be needed, duplicated in both articles, or even in its own Debates article, like the articles on the differences between Catholic and Protestant, between Sunni and Shia, and between evolution and creation.  This is, after all, an encyclopedia.  (And this parkour vs. free running is starting to sound a bit like a religious screaming match.)  However, I do agree that link spam is a problem, and all outside links should go in a separate section from intra-Wikipedia See Also links.    BlueNight 15:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh, did you read what I actually wrote. I want all content relevant to Free Running moved to the Free Running article not removed. This is disambiguation, what you propose is possibly "reambiguation". I do agree that a brief reference to Free Running and a link to the article should be made and vice-versa but beyond that, there is no reason to duplicate content. The "Common Debates In Parkour" section of the article was removed long ago because it merely created confusion and disagreement rather than anything else. This is intended as an encylopedic reference, to go into such matters would remove any objectivity from the article. Aj* 23:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free Running / Parkour - Total seperation needed. 

message: Can someone with more experience clean up the references section? I can't figure out why there are doubled entries and non-cited entries. Any way to add descriptions to references? Random google and youtube videos aren't what I'd normally call good references... --Undaunted
: I'm not sure what you mean there... I can't see any doubled entries (assuming that means repeated entries). And what do you mean by "non-cited"? Is that refering to the Top Gear reference, which doesn't have a link? If so, it doesn't need a link to be a reference. Descriptions can be added after the link within the <ref tags in the article. (The tags are located throughout the article, not in the references section.) --David Scarlett(Talk) 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems to be fixed now, what I had meant was that there was a couple references that when you clicked on the ^ it went nowhere, and some were listed twice. --Undaunted 03:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Shouldn't there be something in the article about how Parkour is not considered legal by the authorities in many urab places, and that it has sometimes caused conflicts, accusations of disorderly conduct or tresspassing?  I personally love Parkour and think that's unfortunate, but it does seem to be a noteworthy aspect of this still fledgling sport. It would be useful to a reader of the article to know (1) just how serious an offense it's considered to be in most areas, (2) how strong enforcement against it is, (3) what sort of punishments tracers may have faced, (4) and have there been any city ordinances or actions taken anywhere against them?  Thanks.--Daniel 02:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Trespass is obviously illegal (in most places at least), is absolutely not a necessary part of parkour, and enforcement and punishment are going to vary massively between countries. I don't think such a section would be practical or particularly relevant. --David Scarlett(Talk) 23:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But given how frequent it is within those who practice parkour in public, it would seem reasonable and expected to mention something about it.--Daniel 02:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No. If somebody is trespassing or doing something that the police consider illegal then they are not a traceur.  Parkour is only considered "illegal" because of the idiots who do tresspass and give a bad name for it. --  Mitsuko 15:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly - but, right or wrong, they *do* give it a bad name, and that is a fact of reality in and of itself. To NOT include any mention of it in the article, as if it doesn't even exist, smacks of censorship on the part of Parkour enthusiasts based on a desire not to have anything in the article that is unbecoming. There would be nothing wrong with mentioning that many people have had encounters with the law who were practicing on private property, and then mention that this is not part of real parkour.--Daniel 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe there should be a section, but it definately needs impressing on people that trespass is no more a part of parkour than it is a part of any other sport like skateboarding. The last thing traceurs want is for the stigma that other extreme sports have got. As it is, in some places we're only a few years away from 'No Parkour' signs. It's not like buildering which almost always requires trespass. You can do parkour anywhere. Whether Sebastian and DB did it is irrevelant. 80.47.161.115 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legality & Conflicts

message: So is it just a coincidence that Spiderman jumps around Manhattan like this, and is called Peter Parker in real life? Whophd 03:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it? Drizzt Jamo 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I saw Spiderman doing anything that was a parkour or freerunning 'move' then I might think there could be a link. But he's just swinging around. Besides, Spiderman comics far predate organised parkour. 80.47.161.115 16:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Careful there, you might be describing the next "iteration" of Spidey. And not that I'm familiar with Daredevil much, but he seems like the more appropriate choice for the parkour-inspired superhero. —Nahum Reduta 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Parker? (Spiderman) 

message: I was just wondering why there are only two pretty basic weblinks listed. We should add at least one video site (e.g. www.parkourarts.com), because that was what I've searched in that article. Instead I had to google to find a good video site.
:Good idea, I'll add in parkour-videos.com 82.32.240.133 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like parkour-videos.com, the usability of parkourarts.com is much better imo 217.227.188.90 13:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weblink update 

message: "Freestyle Parkour (FSPK) is a misnomer sometimes used to describe free running. Use of the term is deprecated among parkour communities, as it implies that the practice is a type of parkour, which is not the case due to the fundamental differences in intention between the two activities."
Is there any reason that this has been mentioned?  Surely now, considering the whole idea has been abolished it would be best to remove it from the article.  It will just confuse people who read the article otherwise. I've removed it for the time being, if anyone thinks it should be put back on please say. Mitsuko 15:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth having in the article, as long as it is clear that the term is no longer used. (i.e. Is deprecated.) Perhaps it could be changed to "... a misnomer previously/formerly used to describe free running". What do others think? --David Scarlett(Talk) 01:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! Drizzt Jamo 23:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freestyle parkour 

message: I edited this up in the Movement section to avoid people adding in long "trick lists" that have nothing to do with parkour:
"There are fewer predefined movements in parkour than gymnastics and other extreme sports, in that parkour is not made up of a list of appropiate "moves." Each obstacle a traceur faces presents a unique challenge on how they can overcome it effectively that depends on their body type, speed and angle of approach, the physical make-up of the obstacle, etc... Parkour is about training the body and mind to be able to react to those obstacles appropiately with a technique that works, many times that technique cannot and need not be classified and given a name."
But anyways some anon decided to add a bunch of "other movements, advanced movements, and aesthetic movements." This article will get huge and ugly if everyone starts adding in their own "tricks" they've named or have heard, that's not what parkour is about, I say we stick to the short french list, it at least has some good info in it.
I've removed the edit and also the request for additional movement edits, I think what is on there is good and adding to it's size is just going to make this seem more like some sort of skating thing. If anyone disagrees please say so here. --Undaunted 06:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job, those lists you removed had no place in the article. Most weren't parkour techniques and none even had descriptions. I'd go even one step further though and remove the UF terms ("kong", "monkey" etc) also, or at least make it clear that they're not the proper names. --David Scarlett(Talk) 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine how it is now, people know it's a French discipline then there are several different terms shown. --Undaunted 07:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement Lists 

message: Its obvious that one of the sites HAS to be in the links section , simply due to the fact that videos is what most people want from parkour . While there are few that practice it , many like watching . I know parkour-videos.com is associated with DB and offical and stuff , but it'd be better to have a nicer site there . Its frequently updated , and isn't associated with anyone . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.155.55.36 (talk • contribs).
:No, neither of them HAS to be in the article. The purpose of the article is to explain what parkour is to someone with no knowledge of it, not to give people what they want. I haven't looked at either of them, but I think one video site link may be acceptable as long as it doesn't require any sign-up (or similar) to view videos and doesn't contain any free-running or tricking videos (or at least clearly differentiates those videos from parkour). --David Scarlett(Talk) 01:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both of these sites seem inadequate for the article at hand. I concur that most people are seeking videos when viewing Parkour so perhaps we can add the following site instead: . From what I can perceive this site requires no login to access anything on the site, and videos are freely available to watch as soon as a user visits the website. I shall add this site soon if there are no objections as I believe it should be the only other link in addition to the 2 currently listed. Adam 19:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont wanna edit the article , I'd appriciate it if you would just visit the sites and decide accordingly . The talk page here is full of linking wars , I'd rather have a responsible editor make the call .Personally I think changing the link will benefit the readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.153.86.57 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Going by Wikipedia standards for external links, neither of them adds significant content beyond the scope of the article. Sure, perhaps many people do wish to see sites like that. But they are not classed as relevant external links. Also, parkour.tv consists largely of freerunning videos, therefore is wholely inappropriate as an external link for this article. Therefore, I will be removing the link to parkour.tv. If people have any reasonable objections to this, please lodge them here instead of creating yet another endless edit war. Aj* 14:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There are images in the article that show parkour. As for videos, it's better to have nothing than something that contradicts the text of the article (as a freerunning video would do). Also, not all parkour videos contain tricks, and it doesn't matter if a linked site contains freerunning videos, as long as they are labelled as freerunning and not parkour. As for "scating", I don't what that is, but it sounds kinky. ;-) If you meant speed skating vs figure skating, then they are two completely different things and showing a speed skating video to demonstrate what figure skating is would be stupid. --David Scarlett(Talk) 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why parkour-videos and not parkour.tv ? 

message: I think we need to remove most of the Sebastien Foucan's comments and replace them with quotes from either David Belle or other Parkour practitioners.
It confuses people as they read this article as he is introduced as a Free Runner yet all the comments and quotes on PARKOUR philosphy and other are being made by him. --Reece {202.67.73.249 13:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, I've mentioned this in the past but nothing was done about it. Aj* 15:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree.Noxteryn 02:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Sebastien Foucan Quotes 

message: I believe Lara Croft, Prince of Persia, Jackie Chan, etc, should NOT be called "traceurs", because simply they are not. Parkour is a method that teaches how to be as efficient as possible. A traceur works on his movements constantly to become better. In the same way that a punch is not Karate, a jump is not Parkour. Therefore, a person who simply runs, jumps, and climbs is not a traceur. They are just a person who runs, jumps, and climbs.
So, I believe that all the points where it says "A is a traceur, B could be considered a traceur, etc" should be completely removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Noxteryn  (talk • contribs) 
: I disagree about Lara Croft, she is a traceuse to me, but I not sure if Prince of Persia or Jackie Chan are or are not traceurs.
: If you feel better, please move references to the Free running article, but does not erase them. Carlosguitar 21:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who is a Traceur?

message: Hello everyone! I myself joined wikipedia a long time before I started Parkour. But when I heard of Parkour I looked to wikipedia for an explanation. This page is what I got. And i have to say it was an excellent start to the great interest I have in this sport. So I would like to propose someone puts this article up for featured! How about it? Drizzt Jamo 23:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured? 

message: Hi there,
I've produced a few features with the very talented 'Team Adrenaline' from Paris over the past couple of years & here's the links to the videos, I hope you enjoy them.
MTV Mono - Paris
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi-P-U1kyy4
Laureus Sports Awards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1zk6LP70ug
Thanks
Ben —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.166.20 (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parkour on TV 

message: I just read through the Freerunning section of the Parkour article.
The most pathetic side of the community is still the petty fights about who said what to whom about what, it doesn't contribute anything to people that want to learn about what Parkour really is (You wouldn't put that info in an Encyclopedia, would you?), and it has nothing to do with Parkour, which is efficient movement.
People that read this article should understand the meaning Parkour and it's origins, not who said what to whom in what movie.
That section should be kept to 4-5 lines of text about how parkour is different from Freerunning, and that's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boris Shohat (talk • contribs) 09:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. What about a merge to free running article? The problem is that thing is a bit hard to be done. Carlosguitar 09:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not in favor of merging, since the activities are related but are definatly not the same. One article should mention the other and explain the differences, but certainly not include the soap opera angle of it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boris Shohat (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I was saying to move some info here to the free running. But of course without a lot quotes. These quote should be used as reference likeexample that is more clean and easy to read.Carlosguitar 19:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have modified the Freerunning section. I think that it can be improved , but certainly not by explaining the community's fights and drama , but maybe a better wording to explain the difference between minimal effort and aesthetics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boris Shohat (talk • contribs) 12:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Garbage 

message: "Déplacement" ought to be translated as "movement" or "moving" in the context of Parkour.
Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamakasi or Collins-Robert French-English dictionary. Despite the fact that etymologically speaking "displacement" is descended from the word déplacement, does not mean that they have the same meaning in all contexts. Dougalg 12:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the definition #4 of wikt:displacement may be used, however I really unsure which is better to use. Since parkour could be art of movement as well an art of dodging, that is why I restored displacement. Carlosguitar 12:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Also the correct translation of the art of movement to French is l'art du mouvement per http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/mouvement#Traductions Carlosguitar 14:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language issues 

message: "It demonstrates the uniquely French art of running away as a tactical and strategic move, one in which the French Armed Forces have always excelled above the rest of the world's forces, but most especially against the Germans."
This was a great entry, I think it should be reverted back in!
:Please see WP:SOAP. Thank you S.dedalus 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French "running away"

message: With all due respect to the great French practitioners of the art, this Russian kid "oleg" is a superhero, better than Spiderman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEbYtOEftc0.  I have reviewed many Parcours videos, and this one more than any other expresses the essence of the art.  I think this link should be included in the External Links for the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DoktorMax (talk • contribs).
:Hi, Oleg and his video is very famous on parkour's community, but this video cannot not be inclued per external link guideline. Also he is a Lativian from Daugavpils not a Russian. Carlosguitar 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Parcours artist 

message: Think it deserves mentioning anywhere...such as external links.. that you can now play a game online using parkour movements?   it is called Extreme Pamplona --Joooeeeelllll 03:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game