Talk:Parkour/Archive 1

message: I noticd that almost all the vandalism this page suffers is usually related to the defacing of Urban Freeflow.  Just curious what the real beef is with them?  Or is it just a select few who aren't UF fans vandalizing... IanMcGreene 02:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
==='The beef': response===
Urban Freeflow (the company, group of free-nunners and company owners) are largely responsible for much of the negative publicity about parkour and are almost wholly responsible for the mis-information which has circulated regarding the discipline. One of the owners of UF has openly admitted to vandalising this page.
UF do not practice parkour. They are free-runners. The sport they practice is apparently now called FSPK (Freestyle Parkour) (by them).
A little research will show you that *outside* of the very heavily moderated UF forums, very few traceurs consider that UF do genuine parkour or are a positive influence within the parkour community.
Please before inserting free-running trick lists in this article or hyping UF as something that they are not, do a little research. Read some *parkour* forums and take note of the views regarding UF and of the discussions as to what parkour is and is not. Parkour is not about pre-defined movements.
Then do a little research into the background of UF's founders: Try googling for "paul corkery" "choke athletic" and see what he got up to before he decided free-running looked profitable. Then decide if you want to reinstate the link to UF Ltd, which does not belong on this entry.
As a side note to Ian, it is of slight concern that you have taken this page under your wing to the extent that you have and are making such significant changes to the article when you are not aware of such issues such as why David Belle might be thought of as the founder. This is pretty primary information and some wider research might be called for before other users' edits are reverted as 'vandalism' by someone with expertise perhaps less than others in this field.
===Response to the Response===
Thank you for the lengthly response to my questions, it has shed light on some topics I was wondering about.
I'm curious what type of negative publicity with regard to UF you are referring to.  I should just state up front that I'm hardly an adamant supporter of UF, so please don't mistake me as being completely one-sided when it comes to this topic.  Can you please elaborate on what type of publicity has stemmed from UF?
I am also very curious to read some of the "true parkour" forums you talk about.  Can you please post a link to one you recommend?  I would very much like to read said posts.
I also googled your suggestions, and didn't find that much on Paul Corkery.  A direct link would help, if you have anything particular I'm up for reading it.
And about the edits, I understand your concern, and I have recently realized I may be attempting to control the content on the page too much.  Although I just reverted 'vandalism' before seeing this post, I may take a short hiatus on reverts, and see where the page goes.
I am eagerly awaiting your response.
IanMcGreene 02:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, after posting this I have been reading around on the le-parkour.net forum, and I'm beginning to see what you are talking about.  Still looking forward to response.
=== side note ===
You might be interested in knowing that urban freeflow redirects to parkour, while Urban Freeflow has no article.
Maybe UF community should just create an article and co-relate them just by categories (such as :category:Extreme sports), since it's clearly not the same subject of study, although they are very similar, as they do look alike a lot (from beginners point of view).
--Cacumer 13:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the beef with Urban Freeflow?

message: You might be interested in knowing that urban freeflow redirects to parkour, while Urban Freeflow has no article.
Maybe UF community should just create an article and co-relate them just by categories (such as :category:Extreme sports), since it's clearly not the same subject of study, although they are very similar, as they do look alike a lot (from beginners point of view).
--Cacumer 13:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  side note 

message: This is the most well-written piece I have seen on Parkour to date! I am very interested to find out who has written it. Could you please drop me a line at m2rock@urbanfreeflow.com ? Thank You, Mark (M2 of URBANFRE3FLOW)
: I've sent Mark the following email:
Hi Mark,
A while ago you left the following message on the "talk" page for Wikipedia's article on Parkour:
> This is the most well-written piece I have seen on Parkour to date! I  am very interested to find out who has written it. Could you please drop me a line at m2rock@urbanfreeflow.com ?
To answer your question - lots of people.  The original article (about half of the final content) was contributed by an anonymous person. Subsequently, several wikipedians (including more anons) added, polished, and improved it.  That's the way we do things, and it usually produces excellent results (eventually...)
Since you left your comment I've restructured and rewritten most of the article (I think it's better, but I could be wrong) and I'd appreciate your opinion (and in particular any omissions or possible improvements you might like to suggest).
As before, the article can be found at:
                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkour
I have some specific questions which I hope you'll find time to answer for me:
1. Have I fairly characterised the time and cause of the breakup
   (between Foucan and Belle)?
2. Currently we have a huge gap between the sport's invention in '88
   and the Besson movie in 2001.  Is there anything noteworthy that
   we should have between the two?
3. I'm a bit unclear as to the correct name for participants. Some
   sources say "traceurs", others "parkouristes", and some say
   "traceurs" is only for Belle's current clan (not the whole
   community). Which is correct?
4. There seems to be a lot in common between the Parkour urban
   culture and the original (a la "Dogtown and the Z boys") skateboard
   culture?  Is this a fair comparison?
Lastly, it would be really great if we could feature an "action" photo of the sport (no amount of text can ever do it justice).  I don't suppose you know of some photographer who'd be willing to release one of his photos under the GFDL (the gnu free-documentation licence) so we could use it?
Here's our standard "request for permission" blurb:
We can only use your materials if you are willing to grant permission for it to be used under terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. This means anybody will have the right to share your materials and update them: for example, to keep up with new information. You can read this license in full at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL
(note: To keep things simple, we don't use Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts)
The license also expressly protects authors "from being considered responsible for modifications made by others" while ensuring that authors get credit for their work. There is more information on our copyright policy at:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights
If you agree, we will credit you for your work in the resulting article's references section by stating it was based on your work and is used with your permission and by providing a web link back to the website of whomever gave us permission to use their picture.
Thanks in advance for your help,
FIn 
: I'll post anything interesting Mark says. -- Finlay McWalter 01:48, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Okay, I never claimed to be a great scholar of Japanese, but doesn't "yamakasi" mean something like "mountain louse-egg"?  Surely not :)   -- Finlay McWalter 02:22, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Mountain-louseegg

message: I play quite a lot of video games, and judging by the short clips shown on the "Jump Britain" program, the game will be a complete flop. In physical activities getting back to the basics and simply using your body is an original idea, one of the reasons for parkour's appeal. However, when transferred to video game format it loses all this. It effectively turns into a platform game, which was original in the mid nineties, and by now vast majority of gamers have lost all interest in the genre. The gimmick of calling the game free running will only very slightly alter the game play. It's very release would anger many, but fewer than if it was successful.
__________
I think you're wrong, the platforming in PoP3 was great. I think Ubi can pull it off. Bowen 04:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speculation on the Parkour game currently in production

message: Hi
I wonder who reverted my last edit, and why? Wikipedia articles don't usually start with a section called introduction, so I deleted that and also deleted the clean up tag which I had presumed was there because of that. The edited article seemed much better, as the contents panel was then in the usual place, after the introducory text. But it isn't now, nor was it before I edited, so I would appreciate a discussion about this. Thanks in advance.
TonyClarke 16:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Revert of last edit

message: Here you can discuss which images should be used in the article. If you have proposals of other images you think would fit better in the article, feel free to post them here. Remember that we can have several images in the article, though it shouldn't become an image gallery.
Generally, when placing new images in the article, you should always upload the image to Wikipedia and never link to an image on another site. You also need permission to use the image from the author.
Wintran 09:37, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: What, exactly, is the difference between Parkour and Freestyle Parkour? The article doesn't say, and Google gets me a lot of people talking about it but nobody explaining what, precisely, either one is in terms specific enough to distinguish the two.
=== Newbie question response ===
Your question is quite a natural one. First, let me reiterate a couple points.
Parkour is about moving through your environment in the fastest, most efficient way possible. From this 'flow' follows, if you are fast and efficient, you will look fluid. Inefficient or unnecessary movements are NOT a part of Parkour. A front-flip is therefore not Parkour, because there are usually more efficient ways of clearing an obstacle (if you were even trying to clear an obstacle in the first place). Unnecessary moves are not Parkour, even if it looks like it has flow.
Freestyle Parkour was created to expand the 'limiting' definition of Parkour. In Freestyle Parkour, you can include many 'style' moves, which may not be efficient, but add visual flair to a run. Many free runners (the name chosen by Urban Freeflow for the practicioners of Freestyle Parkour) like to add such moves to their runs for fun.
In short, Parkour is freedom THROUGH movement, while Freestyle Parkour is freedom OF movement. zeorin 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid newbie question. 

message: Your question is quite a natural one. First, let me reiterate a couple points.
Parkour is about moving through your environment in the fastest, most efficient way possible. From this 'flow' follows, if you are fast and efficient, you will look fluid. Inefficient or unnecessary movements are NOT a part of Parkour. A front-flip is therefore not Parkour, because there are usually more efficient ways of clearing an obstacle (if you were even trying to clear an obstacle in the first place). Unnecessary moves are not Parkour, even if it looks like it has flow.
Freestyle Parkour was created to expand the 'limiting' definition of Parkour. In Freestyle Parkour, you can include many 'style' moves, which may not be efficient, but add visual flair to a run. Many free runners (the name chosen by Urban Freeflow for the practicioners of Freestyle Parkour) like to add such moves to their runs for fun.
In short, Parkour is freedom THROUGH movement, while Freestyle Parkour is freedom OF movement. zeorin 18:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newbie question response 

message: So they want to make a game about le Parkour? Well, personally, I think that's a lovely idea, but this is not the point of this post.
I was just wondering if any of you guys thought about this:
what is it, really, that make platform games work?
Someone on a forum about Game Development I frequent asked this question, and the answer suddenly popped into my mind : it's the Flow, of course!
Ever played Sonic the Hedgehog? Remember how cool it was to just fly through the first level, never stopping, just jumping, jumping, bouncing, and not really caring about anything else than the speed?
Or look at a game like good old Prince of Persia! 
How rewarding was it when you finally got the timing perfect, and just flowed throughout the fiendishly difficult levels, jumping, clinging to ledges (cat jumps anyone?), all this to escape with your life (again, the parallel with the Parkour's philosophy of escaping the limits of the environment).
If that's not the Flow, I don't know what is :)
Anyway, it's a thought that just stroke me, and when I saw this mention of a game about free running, I couldn't do anything but wonder about the irony of it all. How great would it be if it didn't suck...
Alternatively, I can't help but think about a game like the GTAIII series, which are really the perfect environment for free running, even it's a more vehicular approach. Maybe if that's the approach they take ?
-Philippe Jofresa
Hehe, I'm just another fan of eletronic games that can't do more than arguee with your every word. Nice point of view.
Might I add "new" good old games as Prince of Persia (game) style called Flashback (game) and Odd World (game), just to mention, since you haven't. Still about Sonic, the first one was great, but I also remember Sonic CD, from Sega CD, which was the fastest Sonic I've seen.
And the first of them all: Mario Brothers, evethough it started with Donkey Kong. It's funny to realize nowadays King Kong is being re-released. Such a coincidence.
--Cacumer 13:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A game about Parkour? How ironic! 

message: Whoever has this strong opinion on the fact that Urban Freeflow is a company, may I just ask - So what?
I don't understand what the big deal is on whether they are making some money on something that will inevitably make some clever businessmen some money anyways.. I think it's a fair compromise, they host a site that has some interesting videos, some nice photos, and even gives you an intro to various things you can do while your out there playing in the streets, and hey, they sell some clothes.. it's not like they are forcing anyone to buy them, and the fact that they have 'How-to' guides on some moves, doesn't neccesarilly mean that you can't just flow, it just means that with some hard practice, you'll be able to move with greater ease and fluidity. 
Whilst readin the discussion board I got the distinct impression that UF had some really scary motives, but after reading some more, it seems to me they are just a company doing what companies does - make some money, and make some people happy.. But please, correct me if I'm wrong..
=== Urban Freeflow II ===
You're wrong. They DO have scary motives. They also have deeply unethical ways of working. That's why they're so universally hated.
=== Why many traceurs dislike Urban Freeflow ===
I would like to explain a little bit about the 'development' of Freestyle Parkour, and at the same time explain why many traceurs disagree with Urban Freeflow. Urban Freeflow was in the beginning of its days, a wonderful place for traceurs to gather and learn. However, there were no other authoritative English websites out there, only French ones. It is because of this that the definition of Parkour was slightly skewed.
David Belle includes many acrobatic movements in his videos, however these are not Parkour. In one video he even explicitly mentions this. Of course, because of the language barrier, this was not evident to Urban Freeflow or other English traceurs. So Urban Freeflow carried on with their version of Parkour (including flips and tricks: inefficient movements added just for flair). Eventually they started to represent Parkour in the media. Or rather misrepresenting. During Jump London, the term Free Running was introduced because it is easier to understand for an English public. This was then also the way that it was represented. Eventually free running became a seperate concept from Parkour, the one has flair, the other pure speed.
At this stage there were already signs of a break in the community, specifically between those who practice the 'true' or 'pure' Parkour, and those who believed 'Parkour is what you make of it'. The latter was reffered to as Free Running, by those who practiced the pure Parkour.
The 'true' traceurs did not want the free runners calling what they did Parkour, because flips and inefficient movements are not Parkour. They did not mind the free running idea, just that most free runners called (and thought) what they were doing Parkour. The true traceurs did not want such a misrepresentation.
Eventually the PAWA site was set up with a definition in English from David of what Parkour is. It turns out that Urban Freeflow was wrong. This in itself is not such a problem. The problem is they will not admit mistakes. Urban Freeflow then took the position that Parkour has outgrown David Belle, and that he cannot say what Parkour is or is not. Of course this is a huge insult to those who follow David's way (the 'true' traceurs).
Eventually the strain between the two factions ('true' Parkour and free running) was so great that Urban Freeflow decided that they should intervene and 'create' a new discipline, called Freestyle Parkour. This of course solved nothing, and only served to anger the 'true' traceurs because all they wanted was for the free runners to acknowledge that their sport was not Parkour. So then don't include Parkour in the name, especially when 'Free Running' was just fine.
What is also astonishing is that Urban Freeflow says that they have created a new discipline while Team Evolution had been doing that for years under the name street stunts (or 3run).
After these events, many UF moderators left, and UF censored anything and banned anyone that did not agree completely with UF. They say that they have free speech on their websites. Do not believe them. You can say anything you want as long as it is what they want. People have been banned from Urban Freeflow for civilly expressing their anti-UF opinion on OTHER websites.
I hope that this clarifies where Freestyle Parkour comes from and why so many traceurs are at odds with UF. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I would explain more, but then we would stray from fact into personal opinion and also bore the hell out of everyone.
(In this whole section, replacing the words UF/Urban Freeflow with Paul Corkery would only increase the accuracy of the text.) zeorin 18:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Freeflow 

message: I would like to explain a little bit about the 'development' of Freestyle Parkour, and at the same time explain why many traceurs disagree with Urban Freeflow. Urban Freeflow was in the beginning of its days, a wonderful place for traceurs to gather and learn. However, there were no other authoritative English websites out there, only French ones. It is because of this that the definition of Parkour was slightly skewed.
David Belle includes many acrobatic movements in his videos, however these are not Parkour. In one video he even explicitly mentions this. Of course, because of the language barrier, this was not evident to Urban Freeflow or other English traceurs. So Urban Freeflow carried on with their version of Parkour (including flips and tricks: inefficient movements added just for flair). Eventually they started to represent Parkour in the media. Or rather misrepresenting. During Jump London, the term Free Running was introduced because it is easier to understand for an English public. This was then also the way that it was represented. Eventually free running became a seperate concept from Parkour, the one has flair, the other pure speed.
At this stage there were already signs of a break in the community, specifically between those who practice the 'true' or 'pure' Parkour, and those who believed 'Parkour is what you make of it'. The latter was reffered to as Free Running, by those who practiced the pure Parkour.
The 'true' traceurs did not want the free runners calling what they did Parkour, because flips and inefficient movements are not Parkour. They did not mind the free running idea, just that most free runners called (and thought) what they were doing Parkour. The true traceurs did not want such a misrepresentation.
Eventually the PAWA site was set up with a definition in English from David of what Parkour is. It turns out that Urban Freeflow was wrong. This in itself is not such a problem. The problem is they will not admit mistakes. Urban Freeflow then took the position that Parkour has outgrown David Belle, and that he cannot say what Parkour is or is not. Of course this is a huge insult to those who follow David's way (the 'true' traceurs).
Eventually the strain between the two factions ('true' Parkour and free running) was so great that Urban Freeflow decided that they should intervene and 'create' a new discipline, called Freestyle Parkour. This of course solved nothing, and only served to anger the 'true' traceurs because all they wanted was for the free runners to acknowledge that their sport was not Parkour. So then don't include Parkour in the name, especially when 'Free Running' was just fine.
What is also astonishing is that Urban Freeflow says that they have created a new discipline while Team Evolution had been doing that for years under the name street stunts (or 3run).
After these events, many UF moderators left, and UF censored anything and banned anyone that did not agree completely with UF. They say that they have free speech on their websites. Do not believe them. You can say anything you want as long as it is what they want. People have been banned from Urban Freeflow for civilly expressing their anti-UF opinion on OTHER websites.
I hope that this clarifies where Freestyle Parkour comes from and why so many traceurs are at odds with UF. However, this is only the tip of the iceberg. I would explain more, but then we would stray from fact into personal opinion and also bore the hell out of everyone.
(In this whole section, replacing the words UF/Urban Freeflow with Paul Corkery would only increase the accuracy of the text.) zeorin 18:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why many traceurs dislike Urban Freeflow 

message: I believe it would be appropriate to sum up zeorin "contribution" and feature it in the main article's history. Even because, it seemed to me, it is part of its history. So, adding just one line, or one paragraph, could be good. Adding controversial information to the history helps to prevent them.
I would do it myself, but since I'm still too new to the community, I'm just wondering and suggesting for now.
Thanks for understanding. =)
--Cacumer 14:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  history 

message: I'd like to see it be a featured article.  I wrote a lot of the early content, but I've long given up on it, under the weight of daft parkour politics and fanboisim - I'm glad to see it's improved a bit lately, but it's got a long way to go before it's FA quality.  I don't mean to whale on it (and I really don't want to offend - I couldn't be happier that someone is taking an interest in the article) but there's a lot to do:
The article's overreaching flaw is that it barely discusses the subject at hand, and is instead all the arguments and politics and debates about parkour:
* There's far too much stuff about what is and isn't Parkour, and what is and isn't Free Running. This stuff might be interesting to insiders, but its entirely the wrong emphasis for a general encyclopedia article.  Ditto for the commercialisation stuff.  What's important, and interesting, about parkour is what people do - but we mostly have an article about what people say about parkour. I'd recommend moving this stuff to the very bottom and giving each topic maybe two paragraphs, tops. For those readers who are interested in reading further, provide a link or two to notable places where this matter is discussed further.  Note that we currently have lots on this topic, but no references or sources at all for it.
* The most important thing about parkour is what people do, and we don't have nearly enough about that.  We should have a much better description about each of the common moves people do, with a paragraph or two for each of a dozen or more moves, and each with a diagram and/or an action photograph
* We have no substantive discussion about training. Our "Purpose-built training areas" section is devoted only to more debate about what's in or out (I'd reduce this to one sentence at most).  The training areas aren't described at all, and neither is the training.  The article should say what exercies traceurs do, to build up what muscles, and talk about what cross training is commonly done.  Some indication should be made of a reasonable progression of what an improving traceur can (and cannot) safely do. All of this stuff needs to be sourced, and again should have photos or diagrams.
* The "danger" section is much too flimsy.   There should be discussion of common injuries, safety methods, and training and exercise done to avoid injury.
* There's no indication how how many people do parkour.  From reading the article it could be ten, it could be tens of millions. There's no indication, also, of its relative popularity in different countries, different age groups, different genders, or different social groups.
* This article needs a video, or several, of traceurs stringing together moves in a fluid way. No amount of text is ever going to really convey what parkour looks like.
To be a featured article, the article needs comprehensive sources and references. That way someone can fact-check and verify everything in the article. Some FAs have dozens of specific citations (not just "further reading" websites). Compare this article to Teller-Ulam design (which has 11 inline citations and a page full of references, and it isn't FA yet).
Other, more humdrum, stuff:
* non-english words (like "parkour" and "traceur") need SAMPA or IPA pronunciations
* :Image:Sebastien Foucan Cat Leap.jpg is untagged, and is likely to be found to be a copyvio
* :Image:Precision jump.jpg isn't very big, and it isn't very clear at all what's going on
* There's a lot of unencyclopedic writing and much unsourced opinion - here's a (far from exhaustive) selection:
** "It is for many people a way of life." - stuff like this this should be attributed or it should be removed.
** "it can be argued that societal pressures..." - these are weasel words - we need to find some verifiable external source (of some merit) who so argues.  If we can't, we need to remove this altogether.  What wikipedians think, and what they argue, isn't something that should be in articles.
** "David Belle has since released a statement that states in no uncertain terms that..." - don't paraphrase what he said, quote him.
** "one cannot escape the fact that this game will have a huge impact on Parkour." - again, an unsourced opinion.
** generally stuff like "of course" and "in no uncertain terms" is an inappropriate style of writing. Be succinct and direct, and leave the reader to form their own opinion.
** "You are creating art with your body rather than performing "hardcore" and dangerous movements." - write in the third person, not the second.
-- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Let's get to fixin' then. This article is exactly the kind of article we want to see as featured. I'll get to the grammar fixes, meanwhile let's find a way to get around the weasel comments. Bobo192|Edits 07:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll read over the article keeping in mind the things you have pointed out. Many of the points you raise are easily remedied (sp?) by someone with a working knowledge of Parkour: a traceur, like me. zeorin 09:51, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I added the SAMPA notation to my pronounciation message above. I still think it's easier to explain it the way I wrote above, but I understand the need to use something like SAMPA. If you want to add IPA, I am not sure how to do it myself. Philippe Jofresa, 16:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: It's a long road to Featured status, I fear

message: Just passing by and wondered if there is any publically available DVD on techniques? Incidentally, one of the extreme sports people on Book of Cool mentioned they seriously considered including Parkour but didn't in the end. Any ACTUAL products that can be linked to?Grroin 23:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  'How to do it' manuals and films 

message: Should we put :Category:Dance and :Category:Martial arts tags on this page, if the main text describes it as such? Ojw 15:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It has similarity to both, but clearly is neither. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 15:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: hi to gabriele who is brave and honest enough to upload a picture of themselves and NOT hide their identity. well done. not sure if this is allowed? Grroin 18:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case it's entirely appropriate for Gabriele to include a photo of himself doing stuff.  The picture would be worthy of inclusion regardless of who it shows (that's the real test of whether an image should be included).  If, on the otherhand, Gabriele had just uploaded a portrait or a picture of himself standing around then that wouldn't have been appropriate. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 19:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome to Gabriele 

message: I have corrected the spelling and capitalization. As for the translation, when applied to a person, "déplacement" refers to the fact of moving from one place to another, i.e. it is not merely the result of the movement, as in "displacement" or "shift", but the movement itself. Hence my suggested translation, which is of course open to improvement. - Mu 11:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: L'art du déplacement

message: The section doesn't belong. The clarification about why it's not parkour should be welcome.
I believe using the water flow definition of parkour is also very intersting. Could be applied in the section "common debates" to explain why "Freestyle" is not parkour.
At sametime, water could be used to exemplify why, even while freestyle is not parkour, probably every one likes to use it. Because, waterfalls, soft rain (horizontal movement), rainbows, even lakes, and so many other water manifestation that does not imply movement from A to B, are beautiful.
--Cacumer 13:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  water 

message: Could someone please make audio recordings of the pronunciations of these words? ~MDD4696 23:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of parkour and traceur