Misplaced Pages

Talk:Swimming (sport): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:11, 3 October 2014 editAndrewa (talk | contribs)Administrators61,996 edits →Requested move: oppose and laughing← Previous edit Revision as of 09:53, 3 October 2014 edit undoDekimasu (talk | contribs)Administrators56,417 edits →Requested move: closing move request: consensus not to moveNext edit →
Line 83: Line 83:
== Requested move == == Requested move ==


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
{{requested move/dated|Human swimming (sport)}}
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was: '''consensus not to move''' the page, per the discussion below. I also note that the other discussion cited in the move request ended ''without'' consensus, so I would dispute the "has been determined" assertion. Please feel free to take up the consistency claim again at ] on the basis of this result, if you like. ]<small>]</small> 09:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

----


] → {{no redirect|Human swimming (sport)}} – Since it ] that ] is an ambiguous concept, and the article on swimming by humans should be at ], it follows that this article, as a subtopic of human swimming, should consistently be titled ]. Swimming as a sport can also involve non-human animals, as with , and . ] ] 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC) ] → {{no redirect|Human swimming (sport)}} – Since it ] that ] is an ambiguous concept, and the article on swimming by humans should be at ], it follows that this article, as a subtopic of human swimming, should consistently be titled ]. Swimming as a sport can also involve non-human animals, as with , and . ] ] 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Line 102: Line 107:
** "Human swimming" is not common usage when referring to the activity itself, whether as a sport or not, but that is the title of our article on swimming by humans. ] ] 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC) ** "Human swimming" is not common usage when referring to the activity itself, whether as a sport or not, but that is the title of our article on swimming by humans. ] ] 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
*'''Oppose and laughing'''. Sorry, can't take this one too seriously but I'll try. In Australia and I think elsewhere (am I wrong?) the '''noun''' ''swimming'' is so commonly used for the human activity and so rarely used for anything else that this nomination reads like something out of ]. If there are any valid policy-based arguments above, ]. Thanks for making my day! ] (]) 07:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) *'''Oppose and laughing'''. Sorry, can't take this one too seriously but I'll try. In Australia and I think elsewhere (am I wrong?) the '''noun''' ''swimming'' is so commonly used for the human activity and so rarely used for anything else that this nomination reads like something out of ]. If there are any valid policy-based arguments above, ]. Thanks for making my day! ] (]) 07:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
<hr />
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

Revision as of 09:53, 3 October 2014

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSwimming Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Swimming, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Swimming on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwimmingWikipedia:WikiProject SwimmingTemplate:WikiProject Swimmingswimming
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSports
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sport-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SportsWikipedia:WikiProject SportsTemplate:WikiProject Sportssports
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconWater sports Top‑importance
WikiProject iconSwimming (sport) is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Quran

Based on Misplaced Pages editing rules, is it normal that the article refers to "The Holy Quran" and not to "the Quran"? 90.6.114.131 (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a clean-up

The article is very messy, and needs an experienced editor who is also knowledgeable about competitive swimming (i.e. not me) to clean it up. To my mind the piece about the physics of swimming should be expanded, later in the article, or separate; few who read this will want to delve into drag equations. We need to sort out what goes into this specific sport swimming article (i.e. where the aim is to achieve better times over distances) and what could be moved to the general 'human locomotion in water' article. It also needs better links to other articles on related topics.

There is also a lot of sloppy editing - a specific example: "Laughlin gives three physical principles to reduce drag in swimming: ...", and the article proceeds to describe only two.

I've also removed two 'chat' topics from this page, because they contribute nothing towards the development of Misplaced Pages. --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Michael Phelps Diet

As strange as it is, the section on what Michael Phelps eats has shocking news It doesn't really strike him as being about the swimming the most common food to see him eating is macdonalds . So The Michael Phelps Diet Top Tip is eat lots and lots of junk Food . P.S. lots of fatty foods give you energy

Does this unsigned comment contribute to the development of encyclopaedic content? Probably not. But if you think you could write a useful section on diets for competitive swimming, go ahead. --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

VANDALISM WARNING

The article seems to have suffered from vandalism (just now) by anonymous user Special:Contributions/132.239.90.173, plus several possibly bona-fide but highly dubious edits over the past month or two. Someone with more knowledge than myself should compare a good version from 1-2 months ago with the current one, and check the changes. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Insider language

The article uses too much jargon and seems to assume that the reader is familiar with the topic. For example, what is "8&U"? Are the distances measured in meters, yards, feet, millimeters, parsecs? I did some cleanup but more is needed, and I am no expert. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent developments in swimming strokes

I moved the section "Recent developments in swimming strokes" to the article swimming strokes. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yards or Metres?

The section "Competition pools" describes short course pools as "25 yards or 25 metres". A yard is about 10% shorter than a meter, which is quite a bit for sport competition. Does this mean that short course pools can be EITHER 25 yards OR 25 metres? Or should it say "25 yards, which is about 25 metres"? In the latter case, the exact metric equivalent should be given instead.

Short course pools can be either 25 metres or 25 yards. Most short course pools in the USA are 25 yards, while in the rest of the world they tend to be 25 metres. From my experience, I believe that most short course pools, at least the North Eastern US are 25 meters, not 25 feet. I've swam competitively for over ten years through out New England and every pool that I have swam in has been measure in Meters, not feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcollins11 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

25 feet would be a pretty short pool! I believe that user wrote yards, not feet. Neil916 (Talk) 06:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I swim for an English club were I train at 2 different pool one is at a leisure centre and is 25m however the other is only 25yrd but that is because it is over 100 years old . I know that most pools in England are measured in metres but I don't know about America . 18 June 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.239.115 (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

electronic timing

Not sure what is meant by "electronic timing" in Swimming (sport)#Changes to the sport, but this indicates the first "semi-automatic timer" was used inide8eufit the 1960 Olympics, automatic systems were in their infancy, and one was only used as a backup to the judges. The 1912 Olympics article referenced in this one mentions electronic timing for track & field, but not swimming. I could be missing something, though. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

dolphin kick

The second paragraph of this portion is a strange coupling of information. It denotes where the dolphin kick is usually used and then goes into sharkskin suits and then a world record. It just seems rather random and parts of it, like the records and usage of the kick could be better used in the first paragraph. Mellucas (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

swimwear

The section on swimwear actually turns into swim and or training equipment in the middle. Maybe a new header is needed or a combination header swimwear/training equipment might better serve this section. Just a thought. Mellucas (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

seasons

The seasons section needs more clarification and citations of where this information came from. Mellucas (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


Edit "Use of Drag"

I am a new user and I swam competitively for several years. I suggest editing the section entitled “Use of Drag.” The information here is poorly composed and contains repetitive information. The data about swimmers shaving their bodies has already been stated above in “Competition.” This repeating of information detracts from Misplaced Pages’s credibility as an encyclopedia. The data should be overhauled, sources should be cited, and the text rewritten for clarity and accuracy. Walli Ward (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Add Sections

It would be helpful for the purposes of clarity and a fully rounded discussion of the topic to add sections on such things as: Training, The “Greats” (of the swimming world), and the Physics of the Sport. These items all relate appropriately to the main topic and comply with Misplaced Pages’s policy which states that all information on the site must be verifiable and not originate from personal, original research. Walli Ward (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit "List of Equipment" (Currently titled "Swimwear")

For the purpose of clarity, I suggest that the subheading “Paddle” be changed to “Hand Paddle.” “Paddle” is the common term and it resembles insider language. Also, many swimmers stow their fins, cap, and goggles in a mesh bag for easy transportation to and from the car and locker room . Adding “mesh bag” to the list would round out the content nicely. Walli Ward (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. USA Swimming: http://www.usaswimming.org/ViewMiscArticle.aspx?TabId=1729&Alias=Rainbow&Lang=en&mid=4193&ItemId=3046

thjis spgbkrkbn fig neizrdjcv f\ www.youtube.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.72.114 (talk) 13:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yards and metres

This article appears confusing with yards and metres. Shoudn't it follow the FINA rules and all be metres. Competition in pools measured in yars is very rare now. It needs to bee mentioned that some pools use yards but I think we should just use metres for everything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewm192 (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. I also note that the other discussion cited in the move request ended without consensus, so I would dispute the "has been determined" assertion. Please feel free to take up the consistency claim again at Human swimming on the basis of this result, if you like. Dekimasuよ! 09:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Swimming (sport) → Human swimming (sport) – Since it has been determined that Swimming is an ambiguous concept, and the article on swimming by humans should be at Human swimming, it follows that this article, as a subtopic of human swimming, should consistently be titled Human swimming (sport). Swimming as a sport can also involve non-human animals, as with this competitive dog swimming race, and these horses swimming as part of a cross-country race. bd2412 T 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment, I'm not convinced by the idea of swimming animals engaging in sport. Dolphins may swim along with boats but can imagine that they may do this just for fun rather than for the sake of competing with the boat. In any case I don't think that concept of animals engaging in sport has been especially developed. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. Only humans engage in sport, thus this article title is not ambiguous and does not need to be changed. Talk of subtopics and supertopics is irrelevant - each article stands independently on the merit of it's own content. Misplaced Pages articles are not arranged hierarchically - the only significant exceptions are "list of" or similar spin-off pages that derive their existence and content directly from one or more other articles. The title of one article has no specific relevance to the title of another, even if it is a "subtopic" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it should. Well spotted. Lugnuts 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That proposal already failed this month -- 65.94.171.225 (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is why the titles remain inconsistent. "Swimming" is not even about the general concept of swimming, but is currently a disambiguation page that distinguishes animal swimming, human swimming, this sport, and a few media titles. bd2412 T 14:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
So what? I don't understand why you seem to believe that there is a requirement that titles of different articles need to have some form of "consistency" between them. There has never been any such requirement, the title of one article has no relevance to the title of any other article. We have a pretty good policy and guidelines about article titles, read them when you have a little time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Consistency" has been one of the five WP:CRITERIA for article titles for several years now. If you've read that policy this decade, you'll have seen the requirement that titles of different articles need to have "consistency" between them. We have a pretty good policy and guidelines about article titles, read them when you have a little time. bd2412 T 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There's barely more than a single sentence about consistency, the other criteria are explained much more comprehensively. Aiui "consistency" is about for example deciding whether to use the abreviation or the full name of a state in the title of articles about town and cities that need disambiguation. The guides and policies we need to look at here are about disambiguation, that's the real issue aiui. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation is a parallel consideration, but if we have one article on "aquatic locomotion", a second article on "human swimming", and a third article on "swimming (sport)", it makes it seem as though "swimming (sport)" is a different topic than "human swimming", and therefore does not involve humans. bd2412 T 00:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Lugnuts. I think its a shame we have to add the disambiguator for the sport, maybe because it is to separate the competitive sport from the activity. Human swimming stinks because it is not normal usage. To distinguish it from animals that swim? Are we going to compare a dog swimming to a fish? Why not a catch all swimming article that covers all animals (or plants for that matter) that swim, including humans, with a link to the sport. The extra level of specificity is unnecessary until you get to a much higher level of discussion swimming habits of salmon which can also fork out of a catch all article. Trackinfo (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced by any arguments that "Swimming (sport)" is not precise enough. There is not really any sport involving animals. And as mentioned, the phrase "Human swimming" when referring to the sport is not common usage. I understand that elements of WP:AT are conflicting here, but there are two (Precision and Common Name) against one (Consistency), so I opt for the former side. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • "Human swimming" is not common usage when referring to the activity itself, whether as a sport or not, but that is the title of our article on swimming by humans. bd2412 T 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and laughing. Sorry, can't take this one too seriously but I'll try. In Australia and I think elsewhere (am I wrong?) the noun swimming is so commonly used for the human activity and so rarely used for anything else that this nomination reads like something out of Monty Python. If there are any valid policy-based arguments above, we better fix them. Thanks for making my day! Andrewa (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Categories: