Talk:Strandpulling

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

References?

What happened to my edits? The article was almost void of references, I included them and clarified several sections, infact I produced the sections. Why has it been reverted? Certainly there was nothing illegal about the citations, if they were not quite in the correct form then there is no need to revert a vastly improved page?

Thanks for bringing it here instead of just reverting. I had reverted them because they didn't seem to pass WP:RS, some being blogs and such. Sources need to be from website (or books, etc.) that are independent from the subject matter and not self published (ie: not one owner blogs). I will go back and look again just to verify. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added back the one book, I was hasty with that one as I had not found it in a previous search. Properly formatted it as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding a series of other citations, primary books now. Google books is probably the best source for finding information that meets WP:RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the help. I must admit I still don't understand what is wrong with "A Primer on Cable Training" or "Deafness of the Mind and Triumph of the Spirit", both are written by sports journalists. "Fatman's Guide to Cable Training" is certianly not a blog, it's probably the primary modern resource on strandpulling methods and none of these resources are written with the writer as the primary subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.62.23 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of looking again at those. I'm attempting to build it up a bit from scratch, it is a more difficult subject to source than many. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An example: http://www.musclesofiron.com is written by one person. He might be the authority, but the website is only written by him and isn't professionally vetted. I looked at Google books and didn't see anything written by him, nor does he have an article here. In cases like this, we err on the safe side and don't use them as reliable sources as they don't seem to fit the criteria a t WP:RS. Of course, there are always exceptions, such as if he WAS published, does national tours talking about them, etc. In those cases, that is what we use the talk page here for. I don't want to discourage you, I appreciate the desire to improve the article. I will look closer at the rest as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/. Many resources there are very notable and reliable. Thomas Inch's A Manual of Physical Training, Danks, and others are good resources. LaRoza (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I actually tried to find an image but couldn't find one that was licensed under a GNU or CC license. Will try to check out that link this weekend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Public domain works contain public domain images as far as I know. Also, one can use one's own images. Maybe those on the strandpulling forum would be able to find or make such an image suitable for this?LaRoza (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will look around and see if I can find one to photograph. I upload a lot of images here and carry a camera everywhere I go, but that isn't a common item you run across just roaming around in a small town. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have a bunch in my room, and the strandpulling forum with most members (http://strandpulling.yuku.com/) has a gallery in progress, plus many users (including one who has designed and created his own expander). Maybe asking there would work. There is a thread there about the wikipedia page. What kind of images would be suitable do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRoza (talk • contribs) 15:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Chest expander

Currently, chest expander is a redirect, but I'm finding that it is used many more times as often than "strandpulling", and via WP:COMMONNAME, that seems to dictate changing the name of the article. Thought I would throw out the idea before boldly making the move. One metric, google search hits, shows 6300 for strandpulling and well over 400,000 for chest expander. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make a good point, however, "strandpulling" is a better term I think for the general topic. A "Chest Expander" is a thing: "strandpulling" is the activity. Furthermore, people do strandpulling without a chest expander sometimes. "Weightlifting" is the general activity, whereas a barbell is but one device which could be used. Naming it "Chest Expander" would have to make it about chest expanders. While that is an interesting topic (the history, variety of designs, use, and the regulated competitions involving them), it is not about strandpulling itself, which has historically used chest expanders, but also rubber tubes and loops, and strands longer (or shorter) than those found on chest expanders. The results one gets when googling for "strandpulling" are useful, and include this article, and chest expanders on the first page. LaRoza (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That gets us into the Catch 22 of sources. There are very few for "standpulling" as a topic by itself, and the phrase isn't in common use. It appears more people use the phase "use a chest expander" rather than "strandpulling". I had never even heard of that particular verb until I saw this article and decided to clean it up, and I'm not exactly a young man. The word seems to be rather esoteric, demonstrated by its lack of use outside a very small circle of authors. That usually lends itself to being a redirect. The sources I have found (and added) consider "chest expanders" to have either rubber, springs, loops or any material for that matter, in any length, so I don't think your second point applies. I'm in no hurry, and it may be that we need to get outside opinions from people who work in a related Project here, and are more familiar with how we name articles. In general, we use the most common name, per WP:COMMONNAME, and redirect the other name. This is because we aren't trying to promote greater usage of the lesser used "strandpulling", but rather to title according to the most expected name. I will look around for an active Project around here and post a notice asking for input. I'm happy to live with the consensus view from other experienced editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A friend has dropped a message off at a Project for us. Like she said, we both have good arguments, what is needed is more opinions from people familiar with the topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many terms are used by us (strandpullers), but I think "strand pulling" is the preferred term. The largest Internet groups for the activity, and the organizations for competition use that term. The article could stand to have better sections to describe historically significant equipment. While Chest Expanders are the primary tool, other items are used. In wartime, inner tubes were used due to a shortage of proper equipment for injured soldiers. Now, people have other devices which are more flexible as well such as the Hook and various attachments, Lifeline USA's cable systems, and others. LaRoza (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, I am a person who actively is involved with this form of exercise. It is not a very widespread activity. The item, a chest expander, is indeed a more frequently encountered term for those who are not involved, mainly because it is an object one can see and which can be sold. And for the record, it is something I highly recommend to others. For those interested in this form of exercise and those who do it, "strand pulling" is the term to use. LaRoza (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I trust your judgement in that, yet my experience as editor and admin points me in the other direction, which is why we need more input from others familiar. In a perfect world, we could find enough sources for two articles, one for the device, the other for the activity, but sourcing is a bit thin to stretch it into two articles. Anyway, there is no rush, we will leave it alone and others that work with fitness articles and such will come in eventually and offer their perspectives. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term "strand pulling" in various grammatical forms is used by enthusiasts but less common among the layperson, I think (I am in the former category). Chest-expander refers to a very specific item, whereas this topic should include all forms of elastic resistance, including for instance weight training with added resistance bands. I think the best compromise would be to name the article something like "exercise cables". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.50.105 (talk) 12:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC) The main sellers typically refer to their equipment, at some point, as cables. See for instance: http://www.ironmind-store.com/Fabled-Cables153/productinfo/1240/ http://www.lifelineusa.com/products/tnt-cable-system.html http://www.mikebrownsolutions.com/cables.htm http://www.sierraexercise.com/The_Hook.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.37.50.105 (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]