|
I think, or at least hope, I'm missing something. This article contains a section on swimming in non-aquatic organisms but there doesn't seem to be one mention of swimming in organisms that swim naturally! Where can I find the article on swimming in fish, whales, squid, etc? Surely it exists? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe it should be split into Swimming as a form of locomotion, and Swimming in humans? 18:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.31.118.254 (talk)
- Done - I've used the title Human swimming, feel free to amend! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wasn't this move discussed at WP:WikiProject Swimming? This is quite a serious move, and I for one don't agree with the article naming. There are 100s (possibly 1,000s) of articles throughout WikiPedia linking to swimming hoping to reach something about competitive swimming (in humans obv.). "Swimming" as an article name makes more sense for the main article, the whole animal swimming thing should have been moved to a separate article (e.g. Swimming in animals. I request you open a discussion at WP:WikiProject Swimming ASAP. Yboy83 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because science takes precedence over mere diversions like sports and recreation. The plain fact of the matter is that having Swimming focus only on humans is like redirecting mammal to human and creating a new page for "non-human mammals". It's utter nonsense that only makes sense from the most biased, anthropocentric POV. Mokele (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please show the wikipedia policy on science taking precedence? What i'm trying to say is two things: 1) This should have been discussed at WP:Swimming prior to any move being made - it is the project's primary article. 2) The move has huge implications on internal wikilinks - there are more than 6,000 pages in the article namespace which link to the article "Swimming" (or redirect "Swimmer") - the majority of these (guess >95%) now link to the wrong article. Are you volunteering to change them all? Yboy83 (talk) 08:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think WP: swimming will have a biased perspective - it should also be discussed on WP: animals, WP organismal biomechanics, Wp: fish, etc. And as for these wikilinks, there's a small link at the top of the page that redirects to the human swimming article. We shouldn't let simple inertia stand in the way of correcting massive anthropocentric bias. I'd also like to point out that it was brought up at this article, as you can see above. If nobody in your WP is watching it and hasn't noticed a change in nearly 6 months, well, what does that say? Mokele (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP organismal biomechanics" - ha - a project with just one member... and that's you! Surely that makes you biased towards that perspective. The decision should have been discussed at all relevant Projects due to the massive number of articles which link to Swimming. Yboy83 (talk) 13:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet little ole me has accomplish more in a week than your project in a month, especially since you can't even seem to keep track of your own central page for months at a time? Ever hear of watchlists? I'd also like to note that I wasn't the one who moved it, so clearly I'm not alone in this opinion.
- The point is, everything else aside, that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to have an article on a general term that contains only information about a tiny subset of that term, and by a poor example of it, to boot. Insisting that swimming should be about humans is like redirecting movie to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Have your little discussion if you wish, but I fail to see any valid reason for the fundamentally irrational organization you propose. In the meantime, I'll get back to actually contributing real information, rather than sports trivia. Mokele (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ye gods. This move was completed without very much input. Wouldn't it make more sense to move "Human swimming" back to "Swimming" and have the article at Swimming moved to "Swimming (biomechanics)" or something? This has move created an enormous amount of link-repair work that can't necessarily all be done by bots. (cross-posted from [[1]]). –xeno (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Completely agree with Xeno. When people look for the article swimming, they don't look for fish or comparative densities of wood compared to water (which, by the way, also is considered swimming). -- Chris 73 | Talk 16:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is starting to get a little muddied: Regardless of where it should or should not have been discussed beforehand, the move has taken place - I think the most productive thing to do here is to reach a consensus on what article should be at what page name.
- I don't think there is any argument that there should be three separate articles: one about swimming, defined as propelled motion through water; one about swimming in humans; and one about swimming for sport.
- I would tentatively posit that where there are multiple possible contenders for one page title, say 'X', the article with the broadest scope should be titled 'X', and sub-aspects of X should be titled 'X (topic)'. That way, the scope of an article is clearly defined by its title, and page 'X' will employ a WP:Summary style, with brief sections summarising the sub-articles.
- Finally, the OED definition of 'swimming' is :"The action of moving along in the water by natural means of progression." I would suggest that an article on swimming ought to cover this.
- With this in mind, here's my summary of the relevant issues:
- Keep 'Swimming' about swimming in general
- Article matches dictionary definition of swimming
- Articles with limited scope (.. in humans, .. as sport) can be covered in summary sections
- Avoids anthropocentricism
- Make 'Swimming' about swimming in humans only
- Matches historical use, so links don't need changing
- Assuming that all links to [Swimming] were correct before the page moved, it should be easy for a bot to update all links that did link to [swimming] to point to [human swimming], where the article was moved to
- Presumtion that readers searching for 'swimming' will be looking for human swimming
- 'Swimming' can have a link to 'human swimming' at the top of the page
- Links in WP will always point to the relevant article
- External search engines will point to the article which users are most likely to be searching for.
- If people are looking for swimming in humans, they will search for 'swimming in humans'. People searching for information on swimming in general will probably search for 'swimming'.
- As I see it, on the balance of these points, there's a strong case to keep the article about swimming in general at the page entitled [swimming]. I may have missed some points of consideration; if so, please add them to the summary or debate the relevance of my points below. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming that all links to [Swimming] were correct before the page moved, it should be easy for a bot to update all links that did link to [swimming] to point to [human swimming], where the article was moved to faulty logic: prior to your move, the article said "Swimming is the movement by humans or animals through water, usually without artificial assistance" so they incoming links weren't necessarily looking for human swimming. Of course that compounds the problem... However your argument about general -> specific does make sense. I guess I'm just looking for the lazy way out. –xeno (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First some facts:
- The move was suggested in October 2008, one comment received in January 2009, move made without further discussion on 30 March 2009.
- The mixture of content on the old version of the page meant that it is highly likely that any page move would have been potentially controversial as defined by WP:RM, hence it should have followed the procedures outlined at WP:RM.
- In excess of 6,000 pages in the article namespace linked directly to swimming, plus others via a number of redirects. The content of these pages was mixed between swimming in animals and swimming in humans, however in all liklihood, the majority were regarding the sport of swimming (to start with, there are some 3,500 articles tagged with the WP:SWIM banner, a large proportion of which can be assumed contain a link to Swimming).
- The page moves performed thus far has generated a large amount of link-repair editing.
- A long term proposal on the WP:SPORT to-do list was the creation of separate "Swimming" (general activity) and "Swimming (sport)" articles.
- My thoughts:
- The original Swimming article (pre-30th March) was in my opinion a little too anthropocentric, however the content now on Swimming could probably have been easily inserted into the old text, with expansion where necessary.
- Had the WP:SPORT to-do proposal ever gone live, the link-repair issue requirement would still be an issue.
- There has to be a better article name than Human swimming.
- My proposal:
- Reasoning:
- The majority of links to Swimming are from articles related to swimming by humans, which suggests it is "the most easily recognized name" (WP:NAME) for such encyclopaedic content.
- This minimises the amount of link-repair to be completed as current links to Swimming still link to an article regarding the human activity, and in time through general article editing, links will be fixed to Swimming (sport) as required.
- Swimming becomes less anthropocentric, with a suitable separate article for additional detailed information.
- I suggest each of the pages: Swimming, Human swimming, Swimming (sport) and Swimming (disambiguation) are locked from major editing and moving until consensus is reached. It is also important for us to obtain input external from those involved in WP:animals, WP:organismal biomechanics, Wp:fish, WP:SWIM and WP:SPORT. Yboy83 (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about making swimming the disambiguation page, with links to Aquatic locomotion (which can be very comparative and very biomechanics oriented), Human swimming, and Swimming (sport)? That would allow a broader scope, and allow linking to swimming for any animal or human, and would also make the biomech article title parallel with other titles such as terrestrial locomotion and Animal_locomotion_on_the_surface_layer_of_water.Mokele (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That wouldn't be my ideal solution but I'd happily accept it as a compromise. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Making Swimming a DAB page sounds very sensible - this discussion shows how different people view the term from very different perspectives. Human swimming and Swimming (sport) look like very reasonable titles. Titles for the other aspects need a bit of thought about how many articles and which covers what, e.g. biomechanics, evolution (including the return of various land animals to aquatic life - beetles, spiders, ichthyosaurs, whales, seals, etc.) - but that problem need not concern the sports enthusiasts. --Philcha (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, is it agreed? Who wants to do the move? I could, but I'm going to be busy with RL stuff for a while, so it could be a while. Mokele (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - please check I've done everything necessary. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
