Talk:Artistic gymnastics

Untitled
The whole paragraph "In women's gymnastics, you start at level 1, and work your way up to 10 (...) is only relevant for the USA. And I don't consider this English pages as being only written for US old people apv parently named citizens, so I would add a mention stating "In the USA, in women's gymnastics, you start at level 1 (etc)"... To be very honnest I would even remove this paragraph, as it only reflects a situation in one specific country whereas this encyclopedia is to be used worldwide. This is my point of view. Anahe

very cool page!!!!!!!

Guh. NPOV issue!
An anonymous user has changed it from:

''The world's best gymnasts have traditionally come from Romania, Russia, and China. The United States is usually considered a "second power" in the sport, despite having produced some famous gymnasts, especially in the women's category (such as Mary Lou Retton, Shannon Miller and, more recently, Carly Patterson). Japan is in a similar situation.''

To:

The world's best gymnasts traditionally come from Romania, Russia, China, and the United States.

We should get rid of the section altogether. The American bias is also obnoxious. If they're a "second power", don't mention them. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Clarifying my postition: opinions on the "best artistic gymnasts" should be kept out altogether, partly for the NPOV, partly to stop edit bickering. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Certainly no one wants POV or bias in the article.  But this is a general article about the sport, and in it there's a very clear "balance of power" between countries.  Russia, Romenia and, more recently, China have a clear dominance in terms of how many top athletes they are able to produce;  countries such as the USA and Japan come second, also with a considerable "output" of top athletes, but not as intense as those countries previously mentioned, and, in general (meaning that there are individual exceptions), the best athletes to come out of those countries are not as "top notch" as those who come from the créme-de-la-créme of the sport comes the third category, made up mainly of other former Soviet Republics (especially Uzbekistan, Georgia, the Ukraine and Belarus).  Then comes the fourth group, made up of countries that produce occasional good (and every once in a while, even exceptional) athletes, such as the UK, France and Spain.  The rest of the world fits in a broader, more general fifth group.  Anyone who follows the sport is perfectly aware (at least on some level) of this country-based distinction &mdash; as are, incidentally, the judges who decide the official competitions; make no mistake about it: they are biased towards athletes hailing from the "more traditional" countries in the sport.  To ignore it in our article would be, I believe, a significant omission.  Regards, Redux 04:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm getting into agreeing with you. I mostly did this, however, to appease an obnoxious editing war that I didn't feel like dealing with. If you want to add it back in, I agree. I might just do this right now. If the nonsense starts up with the anonymous, I'll see what the heck I can do to deal with it. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I do agree with you that we need to be careful indeed with the text that goes in the article.  Regardless of the anonymous contributors, who may be either vandals or just overenthusiastic (and thus are always a tad unpredictable), and despite the fact that this article is not that "visible" in the community (nothing like Pope Benedict XVI, for instance), if the text sounds somewhat dubious or biased, it will be that much more likely to inspire revert wars, or at least constant editing towards eliminating alleged bias, etc.  I confess that the text you've just restored, which I wrote myself, is lacking in that department, not to mention that it is not that elucidative about the topic.  Maybe we can come up with something here, on the talk page, before replacing the text on the article.  I'm thinking we could use my previous comment as the basis for this new text.  I figure it was rather comprehensive about the scale of countries.  I could use a second opinion about its neutrality &mdash; the comment on the judges being biased would be excluded, of course, but other than that, how about it?  Regards, Redux 04:54, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do something with the "dominant nations" section. I went back and looked at Worlds/Olympics competition results from the 50s to the 00s and just tried to make decisions based on sheer medal counts. Before 1993 it's obvious--Japan and the USSR rule MAG; USSR dominates WAG. After that, it's Russia and China for MAG and four top nations emerge on the WAG side--Russia, Romania, China and the USA. With the exception of Australia (TF) in 2003 and Ukraine (AA) in 1995, 96 and 99, those are the only four teams to earn team and all-around medals in the Worlds/Olympics. Even if you throw out the two post-92 events held in the USA for fear of biased judging, they do have the medal count to be held up as a first-line power. Mademoiselle Sabina 07:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparatus and Equipment
I've created the template and included it into respective articles, but I'm not sure, whether I should include it into "Apparatus" section of this article, on the bottom of it or leave this article as is. Cmapm 15:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes
I've looked into some similar articles, including featured ones - baseball, cricket, figure skating - and have some suggestions on the article's structure and possible future sections.
 * "Format of competition" section, I think, should remain on the top, but it should also include the subsection "Scoring and the Code of Points". I think, it should be renamed to something like "Competition format and scoring".
 * The 2nd, "History", section should be created somewhere in the future,which should be expanded, should incorporate inf. from existing WAG section. I'll think of its expansion, when I find enough information for it, although my permanent problems are my style and spelling.
 * And the existing section "Dominant teams and nations" combined in some way with the section "Major competitions" should go third.

I am not sure, whether these my suggestions are good or not, and I would be glad to see comments on my proposition, opinions about the article's current state and structure, and ideas on possible changes. Cmapm 20:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good ideas! My feedback:
 * I think the Scoring section does belong @ the end of the Format of Competition section.
 * I don't think the order of the WAG/MAG and the dominant teams and nations should be switched--the dominant team stuff should go last IMHO because a lot of it depends on the sections above.
 * I also think the WAG/MAH history sections should remain separate and where they are--MAG and WAG have so many differences and different concerns (ie, the men weren't dealing with the whole "pixie problem" in the 90s!) :) I fear that if we created a separate article for the history of gymnastics, there would be comments of "well why can' t you talk about this in the main article," etc. etc. etc.
 * My suggestions for bettering the article:
 * We really need someone familiar with MAG to add something to that empty section.
 * Maybe at some point, there could be a section dealing with controversies specific to the sport: eating disorders, abusive (or allegedly abusive) coaches, judging scandals, age falsification, major accidents, etc. Not that I like any of these things, but they do happen in the sport, and perhaps it's a good idea to acknowledge them.
 * Thanks for working to make these gymnastics articles better! I will be away from Wiki for most of the weekend, but let's work on this in this coming week. Namaste! Mademoiselle Sabina 01:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your ideas! I'll certainly think more on the ways of improving this article, proposed by us here, in the nearest future. Cmapm 16:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As concerns "pixie problem" in MAG - LOL :) I've tried to introduce some sectioning changes - made "Scoring" section a subsection of the FoC section and moved "Major competitions" section below WAG/MAG (have doubts of the 2nd change though). I'm not sure whether History section should already be created and WAG/MAG sections be subsectioned into it. I think, that separate articles (e.g. "History of AG") could be created only when respective section becomes too long. In this case all the info should be moved into the separate article, and relatively short summary of it left in the main article - like this is done in many other artices, for instance, see the subsection Ancient Olympics of the Olympic Games article. "Apparatus" section seems to be at least in wrong place, but I have no any idea on that so far. Cmapm 22:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I added a "History" section and the following sentence about the minimum age limit:"The 58th Congress of the FIG, held in July 1980, just before the Olympics, decided to raise the minimum age limit for major international senior competition to fifteen – the change, which came into effect two years later." In the reference, provided by me for that excerpt, only is said, when it was decided to raise age limit. But two years earlier the following FIG's rule was published in the same journal (page 732 there): "any amendments to rules of competition will be applicable to the Olympic Games only if they are approved by the FIG two years prior to those Games." So, I added, that the age limit came into effect two years later. Cmapm 20:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have doubts since the time I had made these changes. Were they compatible with all of the propositions here? I am worrying about a short MAG section (it's for the beginning). Is the stuff there appropriate or it should be written in another way? I would be very glad to see any comments, including critical objections of any kind. The main article about gymnastics should be better,than all biographical articles one day! Cmapm 14:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Aerobics website
I removed the following link:
 * 🇷🇺 Russian Sportive Aerobics Association

as that website does not (or at least doesn't seem to) contain anything similar to artistic gymnastics. I also don't know, how it is connected to the Russian Artistic Gymnastics Federation. If somebody think, that it is worth including into the article, say this here and provide reasons, please. Cmapm 01:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Supporting the deletion. THis page is specifically for artistic gymnastics; a link for sports aerobics belongs in that discipline's respective article. Good work catching that! ;) Mademoiselle Sabina 04:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, at last I had caught it :) I suppose, the link is even not worth inclusion into the aerobics article, because it seems to be an ordinary fitness club. I can't understand, how it managed to "screw" into this page :) Cmapm 08:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference between this and Gymnastics
Is there a difference? Could the article clarify? --Dweller 19:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's almost embarrassing that there isn't a link to the main article of Artistic gymnastics in that section of the gymnastics article, let alone that the top. I think I'll do that.-DMCer (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * @Dweller 196.188.180.155 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, ? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Gymnastics Wikiproject

 * I have proposed a gymnastics wikiproject. If you are interested, please check it out.  Help is needed.

Wikiproject Gymnastics Thanx  Maddie  was here   23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * THIS ARTICLE AND CATEGORY NEED SO MUCH WORK! PLEASE HELP-DMCer (talk) 18:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:International Federation of Gymnastics.png
The image Image:International Federation of Gymnastics.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a MAG expert. What information do you guys / gals need to know to put in the article?
Current nationally-rated judge, former NCAA competitor at William and Mary, former high school gymnast, former J.O. gymnast, current law student competing at college club level, former J.O. boys' coach. I'll answer any questions or comments you guys have - I'd start editing, but I'd rather know what you're looking for before I just go about adding to it. 71.62.13.146 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)Devin
 * be wp:bold. Have any free photos? --Elvey (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Health impacts of AG
I found this journal article via PubMed: http://www.hormones.gr/110/article/article.html It focuses on and has some notable data on the impact of AG on health. AGs are shorter and have stronger bones than they otherwise would (genetic potential) as a result of their training. (BTW, the paper's link to its Table 1 is broken; modify the link to table 2 to view table 1.)--Elvey (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

a small problem
there's a 258px on top of the info box, i was trying to fix with no success, someone please remove this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.223.212 (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

History section - include a timeline?
I was wondering what other editors would think about a timeline subsection under the history section on this page. In the history section, there are 2 generalized medium-size paragraphs, then one subsection for the women which includes 4 paragraphs. I was thinking - perhaps the whole history section could have something like a bullet-listed timeline - perhaps restructure the whole thing - ? I was thinking that certain years would be obvious: 1896, 1903, 1934, 1952, 1976, and 2006 for starters, being the ones that stand out most majorly to me, although other entries could certainly be added. Perhaps years before that like Tyrs' foundation of Sokol, for example, but really focusing on the most significant developments of the competitive history of the sport. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence
There are a couple of problems with the lead sentence of this article: There was a citation for this sentence—the A History of Gymnastics page cited in the History section—but it doesn't seem to match this sentence at all. Given the other problems, I flagged it as problematic rather than just removing the citation, but it's since been removed. The issues remain, though. Can anyone shed some light here? Or should the problem text also be pruned? -- Perey (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The "30 to 90 seconds" range isn't supported by the article text.
 * The clause, "with less time for vaulting", doesn't make sense to me. Less time compared to what??


 * After discussion on Tony1's talk page, I think I've understood the intent of the sentence: most apparatuses have 30- to 90-second routines, but the vault has less time. (That is, the "less time" clause should've been with the parenthetical, not outside it.) Given that the time range is still unsupported, and that it's not really essential to the definition of artistic gymnastics, I've just removed the problematic elements. The result is, I hope, concise and correct.
 * As a separate issue, though, I feel like it needs some explanation as to what distinguishes artistic gymnastics from the other disciplines. I'm not qualified to answer that, though; all I have is a vague inference that it's more technical/less dance-like than rhythmic gymnastics, and not done on a trampoline. All of which makes "artistic gymnastics" seem a bit like a catch-all, and I don't know that that's a fair assessment. -- Perey (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

To see if it's good enough
Hi my name is Olivia and I love him and I really want to join your team 69.157.229.35 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2022 (UTC)