Talk:Strongman

message: I have a question. In the list of famous strongmen, how come Ivan Poddubniy, the famous Russian wrestler and strongman in the beginning of 20th Century, who worked out with a barbell that weighted 125 kg, and could stop a horse-drawn wagon by grabbing onto the back wheel, and was seen wrestling bulls to the ground by their horns, is not included?
--SergeiXXX 01:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you worry about it, Sergei; he allready is on the list. 84.87.138.105 12:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ivan Poddubniy

message: i think the use of the word grassroots is a bit weird, i would think such evenements would rather be organised by horeca then politics. when it's meant to mean locally, why not just use local, or perhaps use community, when it is meant to mean that, or regionally if what is meant is the subnational aspect. i think a serious term that tells a lot about more ideal or political movements should not be used for random party's or evenements, since some grassroots developments (most actually) are still part of a serious debate. could be i am oversensitive here, or that the initial writers of this article are from a region where such a use of the word is common, for me personally i have never seen it used worse, altho perhaps one or two times in a somewhat dubious context.24.132.171.225 (talk) 10:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the word "grassroots"

message: Strength athlete is a duplicate stub of this article. Suggesting:
* Merging contents of Strength athlete into Strongman (strength athlete)
* Turning Strength athlete into a #REDIRECT Strongman (strength athlete)
10:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly Disagree. This article explicitly addresses only historical "strongman" competitions; there is far more duplication between Strongman (strength athlete) and Strength athletics (the latter of which deserves a more specific primary name)—I suggest merging those two articles. Strength athlete is still a stub, however it clearly describes a term that extends beyond strongman competitions: there are far more American football, rugby, and track and field competitors who consider themselves "strength athletes" than there are people who compete in strongman competitions. Rvcx (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree with the merge as Strength athlete clearly refers to strong sportspeople in general rather than anything to do with competitions or feats based on strength alone. I'm removing the merge tags now. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)Join WikiProject Athletics! 12:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also disagree with the merging. Instead weed out (and merge into there ->) what is circus strongman events (like the teeth pulling picture)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.238.167 (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion was ignored, or to be charitable, unknown, to the small group of editors who just deleted :Category:Strongman and upmerged it into :Category:Strength athletes, a case-in-point of editors with no knowledge of the topic deciding to change categories to suit guidelines, they claim, without any actual reference to or knowledge of the material in question.Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Oppose per discussion above. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: So I think we have had some confusion on this point between editors. Strongman is a huge article talking about the history of strongmen. Strength Athletics is a huge article talking about strength competitions. These articles are probably too massive to be merged. Strength athlete is a worthless article and I believe was the original target of the merge discussion. So I'm going to redirect Strength athlete to Strongman which seams appropriate. I think the article Strength athletics should be renamed to "Strongman (competitions)" and Strongman should be renamed "Strongman (history)" but I'm not doing name changes without consensus. StarHOG (Talk) 14:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Strength athlete

message: Under the Events section, the first sentence appears to be very subjective and thus deviates from WP:NPOV. Could someone please correct this?
Thanks,
Rubik's Maniac (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of subjectivity 

message: I removed a link to http://www.worldstrongmanfederation.org/ as the site does not exist. Last time I did that a self appointed "God", (his user name was "Dia") took me to task, for removing a link,(even though it didn't exist). So here is a heads up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtdriver (talk • contribs) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error 404 link removed 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: All moved (non-admin closure)  Spekkios (talk) 03:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  could you link to the tool where you're seeing that? Also, 52-61% means that it's "more likely than all the other topics combined", which is (part of) the suggested threshold for being primary by usage. Right? -- Fyrael (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry. That's Wikinav: it visualises the clickstream dataset, so when evaluating outgoing traffic, you need to take into account the fact the percentages shown (60.71% for the athlete) are relative to the total traffic that's made it into the dataset, which excludes (for privacy reasons) destinations with fewer than 10 clicks for the month. If you count the number of links on the dab page that are thus excluded, and allow that the clicks for them can range between 0 and 9, and then recalculate, you'll arrive at the the above range. Yes, the proposed primary article gets more than half of the traffic, but not significantly more: some people would see that as indicative of a primary topic, but I don't believe most of us would. – Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 3 March 2022 

message: As the discussion above has seemingly stagnated I have gone ahead and removed the "Best Win/Accolade" column due to it being based on subjective opinion and not in fact. The table is for international accolades, there is no official governing body for strongman and no consensus on what makes an event win better than any other event win and also the decision to chose 3 events without consensus to garner the title of world champion is also a personal opinion and not based in any official consensus or fact. Brandon Downes (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Best Win/Accolade" column