Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Climbing and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 3 months

Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL

Discussion on if climbing routes should be in italics on WP. If you have an opinion, please join. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport climbing at the Summer Olympics

Linking a discussion here to increase participation.

Talk:Sport climbing at the Summer Olympics#Sport climbing at the Summer Olympics

Basic summery: Should grades of the climbs be listed, and if so how many/which grading system should be. Mn1548 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a change of WP:WikiProject Climbing/Article recommendations

Per the discussion at Talk:Cobra_Crack#MOS:ITAL, I suggest the project's Article Guidelines change from

Route names should be italicized

to

Per MOS:ITAL, route names should not be italicized Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to have objections, so I'd say you can just go ahead and do it! Gawaon (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the names of routes not being italicised in the titles of Wikipedia articles, however, it would be a complete pain to use alternatives to using italic names in the body of articles, and it is a well-established format in many major climbing media (although not in all climbing media). Hope that would work for all. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:31, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Cobra Crack discussion, I don't see the problem with treating them as any other geographical feature/road, in title or elsewhere in the article, and I don't think the general WP reader or editor does either. The currently non-ital Cobra Crack is how readers and editors in general expects such an article to look, that's my view. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason why a lot of major climbing media italicise names, which is to avoid confusion to the reader of sentences. I didn't want to swap the Cobra Crack discussion with examples because climbers are generally over-ruled by non-climbers on climbing debates about climbing articles in Wikipedia (I have mostly given up per here). Aszx5000 (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a recurring thing on WP. Whether your interest is climbing, WWII, Olympians or roads, sometimes the way you want to do stuff bumps up against the larger WP-preference. Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice? is on point here, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen projects with bigger participation amend the MOS-type guidelines for that they consider convention in their area. I think the issue is that participation is so low in climbing that it gets overruled. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To convince the "outsiders", I think you would need a good example that shows how ordinary type would be confusing and formatting would help the reader. Perhaps there is a route whose name is a common word? If you could give people a real example of a route with a generic sounding name like "The Mountain", which could realistically result in an extremely confusing sentence like "Alice climbed the mountain up the mountain", then non-climbers might see the need. If the routes all have names like Royal Arches Route, then there can be no such confusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave many examples of major climbing media (including the largest climbing magazines) who use italic names for routes in their articles to avoid confusion, but they carried no weight. These media don't do for fun, they do it to help their readers. That is what we are supposed to be doing? Aszx5000 (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they do it because they think it helps their readers, maybe because they like the emphasis is gives, maybe just because some designer thought it was a neat idea or because they have thoughtlessly copied it from some other magazine that does the same. Unless there is good evidence that confusion will actually result in the absence of italics, the argument "somebody else does it" carries no weight. Gawaon (talk) 18:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are major climbing publications, and not "somebody else". Aszx5000 (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is "somebody else" from the POV of Wikipedia's style. See also all the debates over whether to stylize brands, such as Ke$ha. "But all the genre-specific publications do this" has not traditionally been persuasive.

What has been persuasive is evidence that not following the convention is confusing. One of the fastest ways to convince people that something is confusing is to let them personally experience the confusion themselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take this example from the Cobra Crack article, before I removed the ital:

"Reporting on Didier Berthod's failed 2005 attempt, El Pais called Cobra Crack "the most difficult fissure on the planet", while Desnivel said..."

From where I'm sitting, the route-ital here is more likely to cause confusion than to avoid it. Not a lot of confusion, mainly it just looks odd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that example, I agree. It makes it look like the route is a publication. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rock-climbing equipment listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Rock-climbing equipment to be moved to Rock climbing equipment. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Unreadable text in dark mode

The background: transparent included in the styles of the unclosed table at the bottom of {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/tabsheader}} is causing the body text that follows the header to render as dark-gray-on-black text in dark mode, on the project page. That background: transparent is also unnecessary, and can be removed with no ill effects (but one significant positive effect).

I can be bold and make the necessary change to the "template" code myself, but I wanted to give project members a chance to deal with it before I went mucking with code on project pages. Please fix, or if you'd like me to do it, just say the word. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to follow what you are saying, but I trust to you go ahead and do something sensible if the current template is flawed. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've made the change. Visitors to Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing should see no differences in light mode, but in dark mode the text in the various page tabs should now be visible. FeRDNYC (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C0uld we make an effort to clarify the distinctions between free soloing and other forms of solo climbing?

I'm looking at the ice climbing related articles specifically. I know everything without a rope is "free solo" since the movie and even some of the wider publications are guilty of this, but we could really do with a section which explains the differences and similarities in the relevant articles. 82.0.12.118 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do have mention of free-solo ice climbing in the free solo climbing article, and we do have mention of free solo climbing milestones in the ice climbing article. The term "free solo" long pre-dates the movie and has been used for decades in ice climbing for rope-free ice climbing. Can you expand on what you are thinking about? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> We do have mention of free-solo ice climbing in the free solo climbing article, and we do have mention of free solo climbing milestones in the ice climbing article

That's the issue, yes.

> The term "free solo" long pre-dates the movie

Yes, having been doing it myself on and off for the better part of 20 years I can confirm this. That's not the point I was making though, since the film it has widely been used for things that aren't free solo climbing.

> and has been used for decades in ice climbing for rope-free ice climbing

This isn't the case, I've been soloing alpine and ice routes in Scotland for over a decade now. I've never seen anyone call it free soloing. Climbing with crampons and ice tools isn't free climbing, even when done on rock it's dry tooling. It's just called soloing.

I'll post a link to my friends blog who is a far, far more prolific soloist and alpine climber than me. You can see even when he bundles his ice climbing into this "free solo" tag, he still makes it clear to label his ice climbs as solo's, not free solo's like he does on rock. And Dave is a professional climber who is sponsored and climbs some of the most difficult trad climbs in the UK (and probably the world).

https://www.davemacleod.com/blog/tag/free+solo+climbing

I appreciate there maybe be some cultural difference here and it requires a more nuanced explanation than outright one or the other since the film has undoubtably shifted the parlance, but we can certainly do better to explain the intricacies. 82.0.12.118 (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Dave MacLeod's blog he called it "Ben Nevis, free solo, ice climbing, winter climbing". Per my response at Talk:Ice climbing#Distinction between solo ice climbing and free soloing., the term free solo ice climbing is used by most climbing publications. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply, you're mixing up article tags which are used to curate content with the actual content and titles of the articles

You're looking at tags for articles which are used to curate content to attract audience. Please look at the actual titles of the articles with those tags and which ones say only "solo" and which say "free solo". It's very clearly split between ice routes and rock routes.

You can see both from the title of the articles, the captions and even the youtube videos themselves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5Gcp8hXoPA) and the narration that they're referred to exclusively as solos, not free solos. Which isn't the case for his ropeless ascents on rock which he explicitly calls free solos. 82.0.12.118 (talk) 16:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better to continue this conversation only at Talk:Ice climbing#Distinction between solo ice climbing and free soloing., which others can join. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might use the term "solo clmbing" to mean "free solo climbing" but that is not what most sources use. And it only confuses things with solo climbing which means a broader set of things? 16:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a bit of misunderstanding going on here. I'm not talking about the term soloing being used instead of free soloing, more that the definition of what free soloing is has been far too broadly applied (which is undoubtably fuelled by publications like climbing magazine using it for engagement.

The "broader set of things" you refer to should include ice climbing without a rope rather than bundling ice climbing in with free soloing. For a big chunk of the climbing community (and I can say with certainty in the UK for example) using ice tools isn't free climbing.

https://www.climbing.com/news/steck-solos-matterhorn-north-face-in-156/ You can see here from Steck's record on the Matterhorn it's just called a soloing back in 2011. But in the article about Dani Arnold beating it it's suddenly become "free soloing".

I'm not sure exactly how to tackle "scope creep" like this, but it's something someone should write something about. 82.0.12.118 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All "free solo climbers" are by definition "solo climbers", however in rock climbing and ice climbing, the term free solo climbing is used for solo climbers with zero protection grear. If an ice climber (or rock climbing) is alone but using proection gear, they are solo climbing but not free solo climbing. That is a very important distiction as one is life threathing, the other less so. Aszx5000 (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, solo climbers are the more general, all encompassing term. Which is why it is appropriate here

Free soloing does not just mean climbing alone without protection. It also means free climbing. If you use bolts or other fixed aid to ascend the route you are commonly known to be "soloing". Not "free soloing". The "free" in "free soloing" means free climbing.

"a climb in which a climber uses no artificial aids for support and has no rope or other safety equipment for protection in case of a fall"

Obviously ice climbing is using aid because it requires axes.

Here are a list of incidents from the American Alpine club accident reports involving ice climbers without a rope, you'll notice they all use "soloing" or "ice soloing"

https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13199100602

https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201213046/Fall-on-Ice-Climbing-Alone-and-Unroped

https://publications.americanalpineclub.org/articles/13201001400/Fall-on-Ice-Solo-Climbing-British-Columbia-Canadian-Rockies-Haffner-Creek 82.0.12.118 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion on the ice climbing talk page, the common name for ice climbing without any protection is free solo climbing (as per rock climbing). Where protection is used, it is solo climbing (or more correctly, rope solo climbing). That is the consensus. Your interpritation is a personal one. 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Aszx5000 (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> the common name for ice climbing without any protection is free solo climbing

Not per the American Alpine Club who publish both the AAJ and the ANAC. There it is explicitly referred to as soloing

> Where protection is used, it is solo climbing

This is totally incorrect, even the soloing page goes against this.

Soloing has been a catch all term for climbing on your own for a long, long time. Before the invention of self arrest belay devices which really enabled you to solo with a rope it was a given this was without a rope. Exceptions to this are named explicitly. Ice soloing, as per the AAC, is soloing on ice routes. Rope soloing is soloing with a rope using a self arrest mechanism. Free soloing is free climbing without the use of aid or protection.

After out discussion I have searched for AAC using 'free solo' in reference to an accident which involves someone climbing with ice climbing equipment or on ice and haven't been able to find one. Every free solo accident has been on rock without dry tools and every solo, ropeless ice accident has been called either soloing or ice soloing. 82.0.12.118 (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ben Nevis

Ben Nevis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]