Talk:Vault (urban movement)

message: A reverse vault is NOT the same as a 360 vault. A 360 vault is a normal side vault with a 360 rotation. Basically, a reverse vault is a BACKWARDS side vault with a 360 rotation. Backwards meaning you take off with the opposite foot (Take off with right foot if you pass to the RIGHT of your hands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.116.223 (talk) 
::Please note that parkour is NOT a set moves, but a way of moving. Thses "moves" are just guidelines to get you started. There is no such thing as a kong, it is a term made up by urban freeflow. it is actually called a cat pass. Also there is no such thing as a lazy, it is called a sliding monkey. Lastly, a mokey vault is just a variation from a cat pass, but is reaguarded as a faileed cat pass  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FleaBagman (talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverse vault is not 360 vault

message: I would like this article to be marked for deletion. It is useless, it's references are controversial (if not incorrect), and the "vaults" described have no real meaning to Parkour. Moreover, this article is supposed to be focusing on "Parkour vaults", and the "freestyle" moves outnumber the practical ones. Noxteryn (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing relevant to Parkour here, because as has been said before, Parkour contains no separate movements. There is no such thing as a Parkour vault. The fact that this article contains no references of any kind also indicates, I think, that it should be deleted. However, for now I've renamed the article and changed the intro so that, while not necessarily useful, it is at least not factually incorrect any more. Feraess (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Waste of Space

message: The main thing I see is wrong with this article is it is very disorganized.
-There are references to vaults that it does not list or explain.
-The vaults are not listed by type, application, parkour or freestyle, or something along those lines. Instead it is organized by difficulty and then by variations (again, it lists variations to vaults that it did not talk about). I found several vaults that should be switched within the difficulty classifications, but I think the real problem is that it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to classify the vaults like that.
-It does not adequately explain the vaults. I have started (with a few of the basic vaults) to expand them, but many need more explanation added to them to allow an adequate understanding of the parts of each vault.
My solution is that the vaults should be classified by type (a.k.a. if it is based on the speed vault form or monkey vault form) or application (a.k.a. if it can be used to vault a high obstacle, a low and long obstacle, or a obstacle about half you height high, but a few inches wide.
Greenbluewhales (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If at least one reliable source could be found for this list of vaults, that might provide a model for a viable organization scheme, while solving other problems as well. Really the most urgent problem facing this article is the lack of sources from which the names and descriptions can be verified and notability established.  Without references, anyone can (and has) come along to add their own self-invented tricks and combos. Also, when descriptions of the moves include the word "you", the article's tone teeters on the edge of becoming a how-to manual, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. AtticusX (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disorganized Classification