Talk:Ultimate (sport)

message: I've long disliked the state this article is in, so I'm going to try to revamp it a bit. The first thing that must be done is figuring out what warrants inclusion into the article. Looking at Chess, an FA, as a model, I would go in this order: Rules (not including variants), Strategy, History, Competition (with subsections on different levels of play, tournaments, etc.) and Variants. I'm not sure where Spirit of the Game should be, perhaps a subsection of Rules. If no one says anything, I'm going to be bold and start. Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the section on spirit games, but left the spirit section, for now. I think it should be shortened to one sentence and included in a different section. Beach drifter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure Spirit Games should be edited out. It is a significant part of the Ultimate culture. In any case, if it is edited out then that paragraph should be renamed (done!) "Spirit of the Game", and not just "Spirit". There's a big difference.Dlivnat (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Spirit of the Game is a large enough part of ultimate that it needs some amount of coverage in the article. I'm not really convinced it need it's own section however. As for any other 'spirit' type things, I'm totally against them. Beach drifter (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I've used the competition idea by Mm40.  I made several level two headings into one, and made them level 3.  The level 2 heading is "competition." On an unrelated note, I'm trying to find out about international college competition. ~Gosox(55)(55) 13:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headings 

message: I don't think that there's any need to write the disc's weight in anything other than grams.
* There are many measurement systems and units, but we can't write in all of them all the time
* The Ultimate disc is known world wide by players for weighing 175gr. If you ask an ultimate player how much an Ultimate disc weighs you'll get the answer in grams, regardless of where that player is from.
* look at stores that make and sell Ultimate discs in the US and Canada (Discraft, VC). They all write the weight in grams.
Unless anyone has any strong objections I will remove the (6 oz) note.Dlivnat (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, remove, it. While the conversion is accurate, 175g is the only thing ever mentioned. Beach drifter (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--Henry talk 21:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

text:  My impression is that 175g is the formal criteria. Also, gram are generally considered the "formal" measurement unit, again my impression Jazi  Zilber (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text:  While I can understand the idea behind leaving in the 6oz as it is the typical measurement used for weight/mass in the U.S. part of the reason that the measurement is always listed as 175g is due to it being the international standard, as far as I am aware. As an American that plays the sport I have never seen a disc advertised as weighing 6oz nor would I have an understanding of what 6oz feels like. I agree that the note about 6oz should have been removed as it does not add to the description of the disc in a meaningful way.JMcT20 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  175 grams? 6 ounces? 15.432 grains? or perhaps <math>1.05387476\cdot10^{26}</math> atomic mass units? 

message: Either way, the article must be consistent and we should stick to one way of spelling the word throughout the article. Personally, I vote for defense because:
* It is more common (113m results in google vs 52m for defence)
* The article in Wikipedia is spelled defense.
* In the UPA rules and website it is always spelled: defense.
I will change the section back to defense now. I suggest anyone who wishes to change this discuss it here first.Dlivnat (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense or Defence? 

message: I've tried explaining to mimiken why their addition to the article is not notable enough for inclusion, that we can't list every long running pick up game simply because it is important to them or even notable locally. He/She continues to add the information back and I am unwilling to continue to revert. Beach drifter (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There's no reason to include this in the article.Dlivnat (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Addition

message: Shouldn't "mini ultimate" be included as a variant?
http://www.ultipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Ultimate  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.230 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  another version of ultimate 

message: the last sentence in the first parragraph reads "Many people have a tendency to view it as the sport of pussies."
i know everyone is entitled to their opinion but doesnt that break some of the rules of wikipedia.
should it remain like that?
i did a quick google search for "sport of pussies" and it doesnt seem to be an idiomatic expression or slang or anything like that, most of the results sounded like porn, and this wikipedia article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.210.197 (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sport of pussies?

message: The AUDL (American Ultimate Disc League) will be playing it's inaugural season this fall. I believe it could be a noteworthy contribution to this article because it is the first attempt (to my knowledge) at a professional Ultimate league. Along with this, rule changes (such as the inclusion of referees) will significantly affect how the game is played. More information can be found here: http://theaudl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1. Kbraunnj (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: AUDL

message: I play Ultimate, and I have never heard of Epic Ultimate. The section has been added on 11th of July, by new members, with a lot of text for the section, and the outside Internet (including Ultipedia) knows nothing about it. It looks like a humorous hoax. --Zbraniecki (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax - Epic Ultimate 

message: I came to this page hoping to find the dimensions of a regulation-sized field and was disappointed.  If anyone knows the field dimensions I think it should be included in the article.  I'm back.  I found the dimensions on a wiki commons page.  If these are correct I believe it should be added.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ultimate_field.png  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.51.144 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Since you did the legwork and found what you were looking for, why didn't you contribute and add it yourself? Be bold. Mbarbier (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

text: fixed Jazi  Zilber (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dimensions of the field? 

message: This section is basically just a history of the Frisbee -- not of Ultimate Frisbee or organized play; I'm not sure what purpose it serves in its current form. L.cash.m (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's useful in that it provides an in depth explanation as to why "frisbee" is not in the sport's name. BenHochstedler (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The  photo in the infobox is not ideal for several reasons.  The soccer goal may be confusing to people not familiar with the game, everyone is facing away from the camera (perhaps this was intentional for anonymity, nevertheless it is distancing), the personal articles on the ground are distracting, and the angle of the shot is not ideal to view the play.
We need a new intro pic.  Upload your favorite ulty shots.  
Here's one (not the best) to get started: 
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Ultimateplay.jpg/800px-Ultimateplay.jpg       Ggpauly (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  lede photo 

message: Each country that plays ultimate should have their own article. This article Ultimate in Japan was either a bad translation from Japanese or written by someone that doesn't have English as their first language. The Japanese are great competitors in ultimate and other disc sports and this article needs a re-write with references. Facts are wrong, there's no way ultimate was introduced to Japan in 1969, at the earliest it could have been introduced would be in the mid to late 1970s. Where's the evidence that it was introduced, by who? league start ups? tournament dates? promotions? Joel Silver did not invent ultimate, Jared Kass did and taught Silver the game at summer camp. This was not written by someone that knows ultimate, the language is weird and I see evidence of vandalism. There are not enough references. Ultimate in Japan should have it's own article but it should be re-written with facts. 24.116.25.28 (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The early history of Japanese ultimate should be included in the main ultimate article.  Looking at the google translation of refs for the Ultimate in Japan article, it isn't clear that there is any early history of ultimate per se in Japan there (distinguished from frisbee sports in general in Japan).  Why isn't a Japanese language version of Ultimate in Japan listed?  If one exists that should be the main article on this topic (I would think).  Tournament results of Japanese teams could be summarized there, optionally translated into an English language version.  Recent wins for Japanese international teams are given in the ultimate article, however these should be replaced with more recent results in the future. Ggpauly (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Ultimate in Japan]] article should be re-written not merged

message: About the title, we still call it ultamite frisbee here i n the US. 73.254.189.112 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: About the title

message: what is this for god sake?
Never heard on this one. And there was no Ho stack section.
I think This hexagon thing should be removed. Otherwise, we should list here another ten unheard of offensive stacks. German offense etc. etc. makes no sense.... Jazi  Zilber (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hexagon / mexican offense?>?? 

message: Only registered users should be able to edit here.
Look at the last 10-15 edits. All IP edits were vandalism. 
I am also including this nut that keeps deleting sections he does not like. And never heard on the tag of asking ofr references. 
Please help folks Jazi  Zilber (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recurring vandalism - this page needs protection 

message: Anonymous editors come here and delete sections wholesale because they want references. 
Wikipedia does NOT work like that.
IF a part lacks referenes, you tag it as "" to note that it needs proper sources. 
ALSO, you notify the issue in the talk page.
IF this lack of references is not rectified, the correct way is to look up the references yourself instead of punishing the page.
Only after all the above can deletion be used.  Jazi  Zilber (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalistic deletions and references requests 

message: I recall it being 4 - 1 -2 structure (4 handlers, 1 mid, and 2 deeps on both sides).
* german offense discussion
I think the current feature german isolation mixes it up.
Iso is a single cut feature. where one cutter is isolated. it can happen in various structures. 
German is a general offense structure. 
The text in the article sounds muddy to me Jazi  Zilber (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German offense? 

message: In the picture of playing field the endzones are 23m deep, which is wrong, because that would add up to (23+64+23)m = 110m, 
The correct size is 18m, (18+64+18) = 100m  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:CC23:AC8F:2C84:1695:A690:45DC (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ultimate_field_length is wrong 

message: Could { or  please explain why the article was deleted, as I don't see a clear explanation in the deletion log?  I tripped over this when I noticed that  had deleted a large number of links to the article.  Even if the current article was deleted I can't see the logic of deleting all the redlinks, as the number of links suggested that an article was wanted. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of article, and then deletion of redlinks 

message: Article states: mixed ultimate, usually it is 4-3, meaning either 4 men and 3 women at a time or 4 women and 3 men on the line. 
"Usually" meaning that is what is commonly agreed upon between teams, or what is usually rule on official tournaments? Is it necessary for both teams to have the same number of men/women? 95.178.180.187 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I know this rules changes and depends on the organization... 81.4.100.172 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  mix 

message: The above Candaian college Ultimate team has survived two AfDs and is facing a third. It would be nice if the keep arguments for sports organisations that don't fit Wikipedia:NSPORT were clearer, so that the keep and delete contingents don't keep talking past each other. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Furious George (2nd nomination)]] 

message: As much as Felix says it's revolutionary, flex defence is just an amalgamation of other ideas about defence, like switching and bracketing. This content is mostly covered by the other sections of defence in my opinion. Tasmanmillen (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the kind of nonsensical wording "A separate type of defense" to "A combinatory type of defense". The terms are sourced, so I don't see a good reason to suppress them out of the article, just not to use misleading wording about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flexagon