Talk:Vault (urban movement)

Reverse vault is not 360 vault

A reverse vault is NOT the same as a 360 vault. A 360 vault is a normal side vault with a 360 rotation. Basically, a reverse vault is a BACKWARDS side vault with a 360 rotation. Backwards meaning you take off with the opposite foot (Take off with right foot if you pass to the RIGHT of your hands) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.116.223 (talk)

Please note that parkour is NOT a set moves, but a way of moving. Thses "moves" are just guidelines to get you started. There is no such thing as a kong, it is a term made up by urban freeflow. it is actually called a cat pass. Also there is no such thing as a lazy, it is called a sliding monkey. Lastly, a mokey vault is just a variation from a cat pass, but is reaguarded as a faileed cat pass —Preceding unsigned comment added by FleaBagman (talk • contribs) 05:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of Space

I would like this article to be marked for deletion. It is useless, it's references are controversial (if not incorrect), and the "vaults" described have no real meaning to Parkour. Moreover, this article is supposed to be focusing on "Parkour vaults", and the "freestyle" moves outnumber the practical ones. Noxteryn (talk) 01:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, PLEASE, delete this, the article is no longer a list of the basic, efficiency-oriented, real parkour vaults (regular -two handed-, speed -one handed-, lazy -lateral-, turn, reverse -backwards-, kong -fully frontal-), and became more like a list of people's achievements to overcome something the more freaky way they can. --190.232.128.212 (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I WOULD NOT LIKE THIS TO BE DELETED. This can give other practitioners information that is crucially needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raidenharuka (talk • contribs) 17:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing relevant to Parkour here, because as has been said before, Parkour contains no separate movements. There is no such thing as a Parkour vault. The fact that this article contains no references of any kind also indicates, I think, that it should be deleted. However, for now I've renamed the article and changed the intro so that, while not necessarily useful, it is at least not factually incorrect any more. Feraess (talk) 14:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disorganized Classification

The main thing I see is wrong with this article is it is very disorganized. -There are references to vaults that it does not list or explain. -The vaults are not listed by type, application, parkour or freestyle, or something along those lines. Instead it is organized by difficulty and then by variations (again, it lists variations to vaults that it did not talk about). I found several vaults that should be switched within the difficulty classifications, but I think the real problem is that it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia to classify the vaults like that. -It does not adequately explain the vaults. I have started (with a few of the basic vaults) to expand them, but many need more explanation added to them to allow an adequate understanding of the parts of each vault.

My solution is that the vaults should be classified by type (a.k.a. if it is based on the speed vault form or monkey vault form) or application (a.k.a. if it can be used to vault a high obstacle, a low and long obstacle, or a obstacle about half you height high, but a few inches wide.

Greenbluewhales (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If at least one reliable source could be found for this list of vaults, that might provide a model for a viable organization scheme, while solving other problems as well. Really the most urgent problem facing this article is the lack of sources from which the names and descriptions can be verified and notability established. Without references, anyone can (and has) come along to add their own self-invented tricks and combos. Also, when descriptions of the moves include the word "you", the article's tone teeters on the edge of becoming a how-to manual, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. AtticusX (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sourcing, could we use multiple youtube videos where people call a certain vault by the same name? The tricky thing is that because pk is purposely free form, it is hard to give concrete sourcing. There are the "basic" vaults that I am positive we could name. As for the tricks and combos- I don't think we should include them in this article. They could be classified under freerunning which is more showy, if included somewhere at all. Pk is more based on efficiency and practicality. With that, comes the whole "preservation of momentum" which is where people throw in tricks, but we need to be careful with that like you said. Something like a triple kong vault is not a trick in my mind, but a double cartwheel over something is. To answer your comment about useing "You", we could use "The Traceur/Traceuse".Greenbluewhales (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to support non-inclusion of Parkour in this article

I've renamed and re-corrected the article to remove any erroneous mentions of Parkour, and provided a couple of references to support the new intro wording. If you don't have any references to support your revisions, please don't add or re-add information regarding Parkour. If you do find sources, then please, before adding your revision, suggest it here so we can discuss it and a find non-controversial way to include it. Feraess (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation

We need to settle the categorisation questions. Every Wikipedia page should belong to at least one category. I moved this page from Category:Parkour to Category:Parkour techniques, but now it is in no categories at all.

I personally don't know enough about the distinction between "Parkour" and "Urban movement" to resolve the matter, and don't wish to be drawn into a pointless WP:EDITWAR. A quick urban movement search certainly suggests that they are closely related, although apparently "urban movement" is more commonly associated with architecture.

If there is a great deal of sourced urban movement material available then I am happy to support it's inclusion. However, if that is so, I would ask for an Category:Urban movement techniques to be created. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parkour is a training discipline and although traceurs sometimes move in similar ways, nothing in this article is notable to Parkour. Freerunning is a broader training discipline that encourages greater variety, so if someone can find a reference to support it then it could be included in a Category:Freerunning. There is a desperate shortage of reliable sources regarding Freerunning though. As things stand at the moment, I'm really not convinced this page meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, so the best category might well be the bin. Feraess (talk) 10:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that freerunning and parkour are entirely distinct, but there are no sources which verify this "fact?" If so, how do you know it? This sounds to me like a violation of WP:NOR.

If you are really convinced that this article is non-notable, then I encourage you to take it to WP:AFD. But be prepared to make your case. It might be better to look at the alternatives to deletion, in particular trying get interested editors to expand the Wikipedian information on freerunning. There are a number of options for help, for instance, you may be able to find or create a relevant WikiProject.

Good luck. --Andrewaskew (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freerunning and Parkour are two distinct activities, and there are sources which verify this that are currently included in the Parkour article. What we are short of are sources which go into the details of Freerunning, to potentially use to connect this article to that activity. I would prefer it for the information on Freerunning to be expanded and this page to form part of that, but I question whether a significant expansion on that subject would be possible for anyone at this time. At the moment my priority is the Parkour article, but I might move on to Freerunning after I'm done there. Feraess (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]