Talk:Climbing/Archive 1

A complete mess
This article is a complete mishmash of loosely-related information that tries to do too many things at once. It looks as if it has grown organically from a definition-type stub, with no attempt to produce a coherent article. It ought to be split into an article specifically on climbing as a discipline of mountaineering (encompassing sub-disciplines such ice climbing and bouldering), with a decent introductory paragraph, and a separate article (possibly a disambiguation page) mopping up other activities like tree climbing that have nothing to do with mountaineering or rock climbing. Anyone coming here for information about climbing at the moment is going to be thoroughly confused by the multitude of links and lack of clear information, and would be forgiven for thinking that climbing is primarily a competitive sport.

Do other people agree?

Not being much of a climber myself I'm not sure I'd be the best person to attempt a rewrite, though I suppose I will if no-one else does. -- Blisco 15:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the same problems. This is the dismbiguation page covering the whole big topic. We do have subarticles on specific kinds of rock climbing, mountaineering, etc. But I'm sure the organization can be better. The competition stuff belongs in the sport climbing article, for instance. Let's see what we can do to make sure the topic is covered cogently. -Will Beback 16:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, but it's not a disambiguation page - well, it may fulfil that kind of role, but it deviates in almost every respect from MoS:DP. I can't find any article that gives an overview of the sport as a whole, let alone the history and development of climbing (which is well documented and quite important in an article like this). Ideally there should be sections on the main types of climbing which summarise and link to the "main article". There must be plenty of books out there which follow much the same kind of format; it shouldn't be too difficult to find a few and use them as references. -- Blisco 19:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it's not a formal DP, just a functional one. If you have a plan go for it. I'll help and fill in whatever I can. -Will Beback 20:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we can work on the outline here. Since this article needs major work, creating the outline first would give us a plan for action. -Will Beback 08:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Start of rewrite
OK, I've written a new opening paragraph that hopefully summarises the basics and should give pointers as to what to develop in the article. There are various ways we could proceed: perhaps chronologically, with the history section first, explaining the development of climbing techniques and practises; then sections on types of climbing, and grading (really need some more balance here, with summaries of all the international systems, linked to the main article). Or it might be better to start with an overview of rock climbing, moving on to sub-disciplines like trad, sport, Deep-water soloing etc., with the history following on from that. A potential problem is the fact that there are different methods of categorisation which overlap.

I've cut out bits that have nothing to do with rock-climbing. I don't think these bits really have a place in any article - they look rather like an extended game of word association - but I'm putting them below in case they could usefully be incorporated somewhere. Blisco 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted bits
Many animals have developed excellent climbing techniques. Some animals, such as geckoes, can walk up and down vertical walls and even walk on ceilings without any problems. But some other animals have the same problem as humans in that climbing down is more difficult than climbing up, because backwards movements are required. The best known example are cats, which have to be rescued sometimes from trees, because they cannot climb down from them.
 * Climbing animals

Climbing also has importance in some festivals. The best known festivals in which climbing plays an important role are technoparades, especially loveparade. In these parades, it is very common to climb on trees, street lamps, portable restrooms and other large objects. Climbing is also common during streetparade in Zurich and reincarnation in Hannover, although security staff and policemen pay close attention to climbers, since injuries and property damage have occurred in the past.Blisco 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Climbing in popular culture


 * I am going to do a major rewrite on this page. Hope I don't step on anyones feelings.  I am new at this. I am going to put this here while I figure out how to make a new page for it.Thinredline 03:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You can create a new article by saving creating a "red link". Climbing competition, for example. If you click on it you can start editing. -Will Beback 08:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank youThinredline 06:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Getting started
The "Getting started" section isn't appropriate. Wikipedia's job is to describe, not to give instructions. See WP:NOT. Our sister project, Wikibooks, is set up to handle instruction manuals. -Will Beback 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, again. Thinredline 21:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the new intro and steavage et al

 * You write well, but you don't seem to know what you are writing about. This is beyond us vs uk.
 * The first sentence eliminates aid climbing from the definition of climbing
 * You define free climbing as roped climbing, and then say/imply that bouldering and freesoloing are variants of free climbing/roped climbing.
 * Then you go on to imply that trad climbers trad because they like risking death,(deleted already) ps. I like how you stuck the word extreme in there.
 * same with roped solo (what a great link) to support a ridiculous and biased claim
 * climbing, free climbing, and rock climbing are all defined the same way in various places


 * Don't even get me started on the solo climbing( ever hear someone say that they are going "solo-climbing"???) page where you pair free soloing with aid climbing. Isn't it a coincidence that both of the freesoloers that you listed are dead.

bah

Thinredline 23:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The traditional climbing page seems to focus on bolts and the idea that the uk is "more" trad
 * The sport climbing page is written from a trad biased perspective, and ends with showcasing a trad ascent.
 * rest of the trad relevent pages are written from a sport climbing gumby bias
 * So far the way seems to be to focus on material things that you can buy on ebay. IE Dyneema and spectra
 * The average page is wrong (particularly from a us perspective) The average generalization stated as a fact is more often then not wrong in important particulars. (I don't know if that is solvable in this format but you could try.)

Thinredline 02:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

proposals
Re: the "solo climbing" category

Google "solo climbing" All the references beside the ones that come back here are in regards to free soloing or mountaineering by yourself. (there are two other: rc.com(idiots) and one from the manufacturer of the "soloist")
 * The term as you guys use it is not in any of the climbing glossaries that I have reviewed. (6or7 so far)
 * So where did it come from? From someone not really knowing what the terms mean?

Therefore (assuming you cannot find sources for the above or that ou don't like the idea of creating new definitions)

Give roped solo it's own page. There are numerous variations ie aid solo, unroped aid solo, simul aid solo, etc
 * Move the soloing info to the already established Free solo climbing


 * Will: if you agree could you change the redirect for free soloing from solo climbing to Free solo climbing

Thinredline 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I made a slew of changes at various points in the text to help clarify ideas. I separated the links in the long list, and tried to repair some bad links. Ordered the history section more or less. Added some commentary where I thought appropriate and made a few minor alterations in climbing history (I know a fair amount about that, but do sometimes make mistakes myself). I hope I've not offended anyone by my actions. Thinredline, if you feel strongly about the previous form of the article you may reinstate it. Or if you have questions or disagreements about what I've done, please enter them here. As I said, I make mistakes myself and need to be corrected.

Silentrunner 23:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with what you did. I would point out that Ellingwood pretty much freesoloed all of his routes. His typical gear placement were 3 pins in 500 feet or a three pitch 5.8R where he placed no gear at all. (except for anchors) Belaying technique was pretty much hold onto the rope. Leading technique was don't fall. Thinredline 03:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Good photo of him climbing in the Tetons wearing heavy leather gloves - probably good for that kind of belaying!

Better check on my subdivisions of 5.0 - 5.15, Thinredline. I changed that a little to reflect what I have experienced over a great many years. In particular, way back I can recall moving onto a slightly different playing field when hitting 5.6 & 5.7. Seemed like almost anyone with a little athletic background could handle 5.4 & 5.5, but I saw climbers be more hesitant at 5.6 and esp. 5.7. Teton guides were a little more cautious about who they would take up routes at those levels. And Chouinard used to say that 5.9 was just extended 5.8 (I didn't quite agree, but those levels were certainly linked). Eric Horst tells me that he thinks most diligent climbers can hit (at least a few) 5.12s with strong enough commitment, and I tend to agree. But change the breakdown back if you feel strongly about it. Silentrunner 05:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I will get back to you on the last one. When I started climbing the downclimb was 5.5 or6 with a couple of hundred feet exposure.

American climbers Franklin Spalding, William O. Owen, Frank Petersen, and John Shive, pioneered rudimentary belay and safety techniques for the first ascent of the Grand Teton in 1898 They reported placing one piton on the ascent. (It was later recovered)


 * Just a reminder that we need to keep this article grounded in verifiable assertions. We should rely on sources, rather than our own opinions or the oral remarks of experts. Luckily, every book on climbing discusses the YDS, so there is no lack of available sources. -Will Beback 05:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So far the only references that I have actually seen have been pretty inappropriate. An encyclopedia using newspaper articles and internet forums as sources???? Aside from that nothing I add to this site has not been previously written about in one place or another. Btw. the oral history of the climbing community is a first class source. It is certainly more reliable then the mass media.
 * I have to say that all the comments that you have been making are pretty funny given the state of this article when I was first offended by it. Thinredline


 * The article is indeed getting better and better. But it needs to be verifiable too. Sources are the way to do it. My own library is in storage, except for Mountaineering: FOH, but I'm sure you guys have some of the other standards around. Oral histories, if they're recorded and verifiable by other editors, are a great source. -Will Beback 08:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If I started out by documenting everthing I add to this site, I wouldn't get anywhere. Perhaps later when it make more sense for my time. In the meantime, if you want me to document a specific item I would be more then happy to. One thing I am going to do is delete stuff that flies in the face of what is verifiable. IE. saxony is and was known as one of the boldest least protectable climbing areas in the world. It wasn't a place where safe and sane climbing practices were followed. Thinredline 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Globalise tag
This article has improved a lot since I labelled it "a complete mess" above - thanks to everyone who's worked on it. However, it now strikes me as very US-centric, particularly in the history and grading sections (with the notable exception of the main photo), which is why I added a globalise. Is there anyone out there with experience of climbing in Britain/the Alps etc. who can help correct this? -- Blisco 16:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can do the US stuff from memory. I might have to re-read some books to do justice to the alps. If anyone could suggest a good overview book of the british rock scene as I don't think I have ever seen one. My ex ended up with my mountain collection.
 * So far most of the UK perspective is mostly on off topic controversies. We need a focused section on ethical differences and regional approaches to the different forms of climbing.  Standards, jargon, etc are all different Thinredline 17:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing Bottom, Saxony, Grades, etc
Who cut off the bottom of the article? Silentrunner 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"By the late 1800s climbers in Saxony were using ropes in a more efficient manner, to protect leads." Doesn't "fly in the face . . ."! : An attempt was made to protect the leader by inserting iron rings into the rock at least as belay points - I didn't say these guys were safe! E.g., photo of OPS leading the FA of sudriss on Falkenstein in 1913 clearly shows not only a belay by K. Hradzky, but the leader's rope going through a ring, protecting Perry Smith's traverse. Also, on Barbarine, Valley side route,1924, the lead climber is protected by what looks like an appropriate piton or ring placement for an otherwise dangerous, exposed lead. Photos by Walter Hahn. There are others. So let's not assume they were all suicidal. I see big improvements there over earlier alpine protective measures. Nevertheless I'm OK with dropping the sentence. However, the article needs input - clearly - by knowledgeable European climbers, able to correct us Americans if need be.

As for the 5.whatever grade descriptions, Horst's popular books verify what I said about 5.12 and above. However, the lower grade descriptions are more arguable. Perhaps that part should be dropped. Silentrunner 17:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did. If you look at the history tab at the top of the climbing page, you can see the edits that have been made.
 * Can you document an instance of a lead fall being held? The typical climbs in the area as at the time involved 450 foot dead vertical fist, offwidth and squeeze chimneys.  This was with 80ft ropes.  the commonly accepted date for modern belaying concepts being introduce to the western us was in the 1930's by underhill in the sierra bulletin. (well documented) don't know anything about the grades edits Thinredline 18:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be able to if my German were better. I have a copy of Bergsteigen in Sachsen (1936), but haven't translated much of it. It's printed in gothic German, so that makes it twice as hard! Also, the examples I gave above were a little later than the late 1800s. My error. Yes, Underhill was prominent in that respect, and Dick Leonard and companions developed the dynamic belay (as you cited) in the early 1930s at Indian Rock, I believe. That was a huge step in safety. I think I'm going to bow out of this project. I've put in my 2 cents worth, but it looks too huge if it is to include all the different aspects of climbing and all the different nationalities involved. You've done a good job of rescuing this article from it's early peculiar incarnation, THR. If you're willing to put up with the frustrations more power to you. It could be a real showpiece with effort. A lot of what should be included is already at various Wikipeduia links - some good, others not so. I agree with you as to the "verifiable sources" frequently being merely various author's opinions, no better than ours - except for dates, routes, etc. Good luck! Silentrunner 20:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Rockclimbing on the internet is guaranteed to require a thick skin and it can take time to know you you are interacting with. RE the saxony deletion, sorry for wasting your time in that way.(you should of seen my version of) I plan on noting that saxony was the premier climbing location in the early 1900's.  My ver first climbing book was bergsteigen, basic rock climbing by r.c.aleith. stick around. Thinredline 21:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Historic benchmarks
Can we please include the significance of these benchmarks? There are countless first ascents, but only a few are worth including in a short list. For example, why is this important? -Will Beback 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1938 Cassin ascended the Walker Spur of the Grandes Jorasses

It makes a lot of peoples list for one of the top ten ascents ever. Why is a long story worthy of a book. It is also the classic line on one of the most famous wall in the Alps. Thinredline 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then let's say that.
 * 1938 Cassin ascended the Walker Spur of the Grandes Jorasses, considered among the ten most difficult ascents ever''
 * and let's make sure to say who thinks it is amont the top ten. -Will Beback 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you giving orders now?
 * I spent more time dealing with you on this one item then I did on posting most of the list on this site. This is supposed to be a collaborative effort and you seem to think that I should be delivering a finished product.

If you wanted to know what is unique about casin and the walker spur you could of looked it up for yourself instead of asking me to do it for you. Then you have the nerve to tell me to add it for you? And where did you get "ten most difficult"??? rewriting thing that you don't understand. Thinredline 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Where would I look it up? I don't have any reference books at hand that mention it. Yes, if you want to add material then you should be prepared to explain its relevance and to add the reference as well. I just said "difficult" as an example. Maybe it's in the top ten because it is the most scenic, or has the best warming hut at the top. I don't know, it's your fact. -Will Beback 05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the sport routes. It includes the euros more and each of the routes is the first in grade according to someone somewhere. That or world famous. I am not putting expedition style climbers into this list as they belong in mountaineering. The alps are more like alpine climbing so they fit here... Thinredline 03:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Will: If you will notice in the climbing history section, I didn't make any assertions about the cassin other then it was a notable climb. I told you what the deal is on the cassin on the talk page and then you tell me in a personal message on my talk page that wikipedia policy requires that I document anything that I say to an administrator on a talk page?

Will someone please ask this administrator to please stop wasting my time.

almost gone Thinredline

Now he tells me to chill out. Will, your claim to have a climbing library in storage seems to be a falsehood to say the least. You don't seem to know anything about rock climbing or mountaineering, or their history.

Have you looked at the bibliography that I added.~ 60 entries That is about a third of my collection of climbing related books. Probably around twenty different books that mention ricardo cassin and the walker spur in one place or another. Some of which I haven't read for twenty years. Even with my library it would take a couple of hours at least to document each item I placed in history section. A list that I put together over a number of years for my own use. Thinredline 07:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to climbing
Hey Silentrunner, I remember reading, probably on your site that using the glued in belay pins as lead pro was prohibited by the original standards. I also seem to recall that threading the rope through the "pin" required untying from the rope....

Thinredline 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to even make the suggestion, but you have the perfect writing style to rewrite the horrible intro paragraph. Thinredline

No, the comment Thorington made : "the rings are meant only for belays . . .", in its entirety is :"the rings are meant only for belays, and not for hand or footholds." The photo of OPS on Falkenstein in 1913 clearly shows the rope going through a ring some distance from the belayer. I think you are correct that in the early days the leader had to unrope and thread the rope through the ring, then tie the rope on again.

Re:I hate to even make the suggestion, but you have the perfect writing style to rewrite the horrible intro paragraph. : Thanks for the complement, but you're doing fine! Silentrunner 03:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Really bad
Your asking me to document stuff when you are hosting things like this?

Red point From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Redpoint) See Red Point for places and geographical features of that name. In climbing, red pointing sometimes refers to repeatedly trying the same moves on a route until the climber is able to do them. The climber will learn the moves as he attempts them. This is a relatively recent development in climbing and the term was first used by German climbers around the time of the introduction of sport climbing. The origin of this term lies with a well known German climber who would keep a list of routes he did in a notebook. After reaching the top of a route no matter how, he would put a red cross (Rotkreis) next to the route. Should he then later manage the route in one go, he would change the cross into a big red dot (Rotpunkt), hence the name: red point ascent. Through its use sport ascents have been made at grades up to 9b+. The trad climbing equivalent is a head point. To obtain or accomplish a red point, the climber must climb the route from the start, leading while placing and clipping quickdraws as they go to the top, without falling or hanging on the rope. This differs from on-sighting a climb or flashing a climb in that a red point can be attempted as many times as needed, so long as it is climbed from the start without falling or hanging, and the quickdraws are not already in place. Pink pointing is similar, but with the quickdraws already clipped to the bolts.

Lets see where to start
 * Red pointing means repeatedly trying the same moves on a route until the climber is able to do them until you can do the move. Nope, it means your hangdogging.
 * A well known german climber who you cannot remember the name of..
 * Kurt Albert ring a bell

Red x's and red dot's in a note book. I guess you didn't like the idea of painting marks on the rock, so you figured you would rewrite history. I mean who is going to know.

Red pointing is a high standard of climbing. Head pointing is top roping and pre placed gear. ie poor style (by us standards anyway)

Then after describing the trad origin of the term from a gumby perspective you turn around and define a sport red point from a trad perspective. Too funny

This was the number one return from googling red point.


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Will Beback, or anyone else associated with this article, was responsible for the dubious state of Red point (see history). Please don't blame individual editors for other people's edits. If we were all held responsible for all of Wikipedia's faults we'd never get anywhere. If you think an article is inaccurate, correct it yourself or raise the issue on the relevant talk page - that's what Wikipedia is all about. There's a lot of poor content on this encyclopedia, but that's no excuse not to strive for excellency in all your edits - and that includes citing sources. -- Blisco 12:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Where do you see that I blamed anyone in particular for the redpoint definition? I put it in here in order to verify that no one actully thought it was correct, so that I don't have to be to concerned that someone was just going to erase it.

Will had every right to inform of how the site prefers things.; He has no right to keep bugging me about it or to ask me a question and then claim that I am violating site policies for not answering it in the way he wanted.

"The basic message from this site that I am getting is that my input is not good enough for wikipedia. (that's FUNNY STUFF)
 * The fact that not one of you cares to acknowledge will's obviously inappropriate behavior is obviously cliquish.
 * If it is the sites opinion that Will was just doing his job in an appropriate manner. Then more then likely my stay here is going to be very short.

Thinredline 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't welcome editors who make personal attacks on other editors ("You don't seem to know anything about [...]"), so goodbye! Stan 23:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

History
The history section is getting a bit long for a main article - would be better to have a History of climbing that can do elaborate timelines and such. Appropriate length here is 2-3 short paragraphs, similar to what is done for country articles. Similarly for issues of technique; a reader coming in knowing nothing of climbing isn't going to want to get sunk into minutiae like "red pointing" vs "hangdogging" - we have a whole category of climbing articles that have plenty of room for that level of detail. In this case sport climbing seems most appropriate, nothing about the specialized terms there.

(And please, sign all of your additions here! Very confusing to try to figure out what's being discussed without them.) Stan 12:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed
It seems to me that the deal is you do not like volunteers that actually know what they are talking about. Because it makes you look bad?? So you guys fall back on what you think your good at. being wikipedians??? not. Do you really think that being in wiki form is more important then being reasonably correct?

So at this point I need to find out if I need to delete all of the stuff that I am not prepared to document in the way that you want. You guys seem to think that I am responsible for correcting any mistakes that you guys decide ou want to pick on. not

Obviously if posting something like cassin on the walker. Forgive me for thinking that many people could elaborate on one of the most famous climbs in the world put up by one of the most famous climbers in the world who has one of the largest climbing companies in europe named after him and also happenned to have put up the most famous technical mountaneering route in the united states. Who would know anthing about that.

BTW the assertion I made about a certain persons knowledge level is one of the easier things on this site to document. ps. you wouldn't be doing me a dis-service by banning me from the site. I don't like to be pissed off.

 ps This is official notification that I am filing a "RFC" over the abusive and annoying behavior of the admin in context of my time and contributions here  Thinredline 07:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re bliscos comment
Since you obviously don't get it. The point was and is that their is a lot of misinformation on this site in relation to climbing. Lot's of work to do. So why is will so bored that he has nothing better to do then to keep bugging someone that obviously seems to know what he is talking about??? I love all the sentiments of who cares if the difinitions are wrong in the climbing glossary and what does that have to do with the climbing page anyway? Great stuff. Here is a funny thing. I care what is written about rockclimbing on this site. Being able to make an effort in ensuring that this site reflects the truth about rockclimbing is something I am willing to fight for. This isn't the first time I have run into ego's and politics on the internet in regards rockclimbing. The biggest problem to date has been dishonesty. We will see where you guy end up on that scale. Thinredline 07:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am bored so I will point out one more thing. There isn't but one reference on this entire page. And it was added by jg a couple of days ago. Probably in response to the comments on the talk page.

My interactions with unhelpfull Will
My history with the admin Will Beback I come to this page and find a poorly written mostly incorrect 30 word into to climbing. I spend an hour writing an admittedly less then perfect intro. The next morning someone came in out of the blue and erased it, replacing it with dribble. I barked. (seems to be a common scenario for first time users) Will responded on my talk page, not a problem He had me delete a getting started page. Not a problem (it could of been reworded)

A while later I added a list of fifty different historical items at one time. Will mentioned documenting things. I told him that I didn't have time do that yet. Maybe later. (there is a lot of misinformation on this site)

He bugged me again and I told him he was annoying me. (I don't like people to waste my time)

The problem:

Excert from this page Can we please include the significance of these benchmarks? There are countless first ascents, but only a few are worth including in a short list. For example, why is this important? -Will Beback 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1938 Cassin ascended the Walker Spur of the Grandes Jorasses

It makes a lot of peoples list for one of the top ten ascents ever. Why is a long story worthy of a book. It is also the classic line on one of the most famous wall in the Alps. Thinredline 03:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then let's say that.
 * 1938 Cassin ascended the Walker Spur of the Grandes Jorasses, considered among the ten most difficult ascents ever''
 * and let's make sure to say who thinks it is amont the top ten. -Will Beback 04:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you giving orders now?


 * I declined
 * Then he had the nerve to send me a pm claiming that I that I was violating site policies by not documenting a comment on a talk page.

All of the above can be found on the Talk:Climbing page.

All I am asking for is the sites opinion of whether will's behavior has been appropriate or not.

I want to be able to contribute to this article, without people wasting my time. Useful and appropriate guidance is fine. Orders are not. Your more then welcomed to delete anything I add that you object to.

I also would like to know if my observation that Will doesn't know much about climbing constitutes a personal attack? If the guidelines say that it does. Then I apologize. I do kind of object to will's standard of deleting anything he doesn't personally know.

I would also point out that I offered to document a few select items chosen by the admins. that doesn't include assertions made on a talk page in response to a question.

Thinredline 22:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) (a twenty plus year climber(hardly any aid) with an extensive climbing library) who couln't figure out how to file a complaint so I put it here

'''PS I would appreciate it Will Beback would stop sending me messages as all they do is piss me off. If you don't like what I add to site, erase it, otherwise leave me alone.''' Thinredline 22:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See No personal attacks for instance. Unless you have a long personal acquaintance with Will Beback, you don't actually know how much he knows about climbing, or anything else. It's also useful to have editors not intimately familiar with a topic, because they're more likely to see where oldtimers omit things because "everybody knows" something. WP as a whole is gradually tightening up on people adding personal opinion and experience with no references, so although we have lot of articles with no references, that shouldn't be taken as license to do more of that. Quite often we discover that what "everybody knows" is actually a rumor or urban legend with no basis in any published source anywhere. This is all part of the collaborative scholarly process that is an essential part of WP's development. Not unlike a climbing party if you think about it - if the belayer calls up to say "5 meters" or "are you sure about that overhang", the leader should take that as part of the teamwork, not as a reason to cut the rope and free-solo the rest of the way! Stan 13:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A fresh restart
How about a fresh restart? People who know the subject, add what you know. People who know where a fact tag should go can add it. People who know where the sources are can add them. No volunteer is required to do tasks they don't care to do. On the other hand, unsourced assertions will eventually be sourced or deleted. Let's make more progress. I know nothing about rock climbing but I love to learn and I'm good at looking things up on the internet. Maybe I can help. WAS 4.250 15:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Documentation
I would much prefer to talk about something I like. Like climbing.

So the proper way to document an assertion is to copy it word for word from another encyclopedia that doesn't source their material?

"De Ville made the ascent using ladders and other artificial aids, thus making Mont Aiguille the site of the first Alpine rock climb, a feat which was not repeated on Mont Aiguille until 1834, 342 years later."[1]

Most authorities would disagree with a number of assertions made in that entry. Thinredline 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the ideal way (though it's marginally better than an unsourced statement, so long as the quotation is short and clearly referenced; to quote the old saying, "if you copy from one source, it's plagiarism - if you copy from many sources it's research"). It ought to be rephrased in someone's own words.


 * However, this bullet-pointed list is not good organisation either. History isn't about listing facts and dates - it's about interpreting the sources and drawing conclusions from the facts. Luckily we don't have to do the interpreting ourselves (that would be original research), as there must be dozens of books and chapters of books about the history of climbing; all you need to do is summarise the main argument in your own words. What's most important is that it's in continuous prose, not a list. (Incidentally the Mountaineering article falls foul of this as well.)


 * I may regret saying this (I'm spending far too much time on Wikipedia at the moment), but I'll have a go at turning your list into continuous prose. It'll need additional input from other sources to address the American bias, but once it's in a more readable form and in encyclopedic language it'll hopefully be easier to manage. Personally I don't think it's necessary to reference every single statement (for the time being at least - it's not as if we're anywhere near featured article status yet!) - so long as all the information is there in a few sources, just cite those at the end, as you've done already. We'll see how it turns out anyway. -- Blisco 19:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I am getting confused now. A collection of anonymous ramblings by unknown people is a source for for an wikipedia??? You realize that that site is being written in a similiar manner to this one except for the fact that they do not require any documentation at all. For the most part people, reading glossary entries and the elaborating on them. (Yes, I am getting a little soured on the internet and rockclimbing.)

As for the history section. You have to start somewhere. And if you are going to try to summarize climbing on seven continents over a hundred years in prose that will fit on one page. That would probably be a first. Btw the way. I didn't write that list with this use is mind. In other words I wouldn't consider that to be a comprehensive overview. It way give you enough to work with for what ou have in mind. Thinredline 20:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked into that site some more. Those are single person entries. Reviewed but not edited. So it is alright to directly quote an unknown person. Just so long as you can link it to a site that has a cool name. Great stuff. Thinredline 21:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point, that site doesn't meet the criteria at Reliable sources. I'll remove the source from my rewrite. It shouldn't be too hard to find a better one. -- Blisco 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thinredline, this is how it is supposed to work. We edit each others stuff on the article and we discuss the article on the talk page with verifyability, lack of bias (neutral point of view), and no original research being chief concerns. Being blunt is ok, if not optimum. Discussing the article is the key. When you find yourself discussing the editors rather than their edits its time for a break! WAS 4.250 22:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it. will asked me what the signifigance of an entry was. I told him. then he pretty much ordered me to put it in the article and find someone else that said what I said. I don't take assignments in the form of orders. Suggestions directed towards eveyone is something I am already complying with. Thinredline 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do get it. You are not perfect. I am not perfect. Will is not perfect. Cut Will some slack. WAS 4.250 23:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Blisco: Don't call it the "the first alpine ascent"  Thinredline 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If Will actually makes a worthwhile contribution to this article. Then I will like him. Haven't been around long enough to know much about that. As for myself, I don't think it is unreasonable that I get to choose where, when and how I make a contribution to the site. (within established site guidelines) Thinredline 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure you get to choose. From our multiple years of experience with millions of articles, we've developed some "best practices" over and above the guidelines. For instance, if there is substantive disagreement about content or organization, it works better to leave the article alone (even if in a poor state) and come to agreement on the talk page, rather than yoyo-ing the article all over the place. It's not a matter of "giving orders" - we all know that nobody can order anybody to do anything here, with the exception of the Arbitration Committee, who only get involved in extreme cases. However, we're all free to post suggestions in the hope that other editors will find them compelling enough to follow. We also tend to make more suggestions to new editors, so that they don't have to rediscover everything we've already learned. The whole thing is a weird sort of passive-aggressive system working on a large scale - some days it seems pretty defective, other days it seems to produce improbably good results. Stan 00:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope the yoyo comment wasn't in to response to my edit on history section. (i reverted it and added a source of sorts)) It was blatantly wrong and against site rules.
 * Point number one. there is virtual nothing that is documented in any real manner in this article.
 * Point Two: You only have to tell me something one time.
 * Point Three: If I document something, it's going to be an primary source or a comment by someone who has done the climb in question. anybody can google it, Isn't what I would consider quality work. Thinredline 03:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

History
Whats the wiki way to format the sources at the bottom of the history page? Thinredline 06:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

We have pages and pages describing all the variations one can use. I will implement what I find best, and if others choose to alter, improve, adjust; well that's how wikipedia works. WAS 4.250 16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't helpful Thinredline 17:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Citing sources tells you all you need to know. See also Footnotes, which explains the system WAS 4.250 is using. BTW I really am working on a rewrite in narrative form, so I suggest leaving off adding more references until after I've finished it. -- Blisco 17:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I give up
OK, I do regret saying that I'd do a rewrite. I did the first couple of paragraphs, with help from this rather old account, but the note form, lack of context and my unfamiliarity with the topic, along with lack of time, means there's no way I'll get to the end. I've put my woeful attempt in my user space at User:Blisco/History of climbing, and if anyone wants to do anything with it you're welcome.

I really think it would be for the best if you got rid of the whole thing and started afresh. It's handy as a list of notable achievements, especially from a North American angle, and should give some useful pointers towards a rewrite; however, as I said above it's going to be much easier to go back to basics: find two or three short and up-to-date accounts of the history of climbing, making sure they cover all major areas, and use them to write a concise and easy-to-follow summary.

Once the history section is done, getting the rest of the article into reasonable shape should be easy. I's got a workable structure, and nearly all of the points that need to be covered are already dealt with in other articles - it's just a case of summarising them. The grading system, on the other hand, needs slimming down: anything on YDS that isn't already in Grade (climbing) should be incorporated there, and the section on this page should have basic information about all the major grading systems worldwide.

I've made a few changes to the structure which should hopefully make the task a bit easier, and added a few cleanup tags to a) alert readers that this is a work in progress and b) try and recruit some more collaborators. I'm sorry I won't be around to help out for a while - real life calls.

By the way, is it time that some or all of this talk page is archived? Not only is it quite long, it's getting to the point where potential editors might be put off by the amount of wrangling that's gone on. --Blisco 23:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do.


 * I put it up there in hopes that it would get input from other   countries really.  The only consise world oreinted semi profesionally written account of climbing history that I have seen are on a couple of internet encyclopedias...  Both are skewed in one way or another.
 * Once we have something to replace it, we could bump the timeline to a history page of it's own, let it develop and use it to main synopsis the.
 * The only way I am going to learn the wiki way is the slow way. Every time I look for a specific answer on a help page.  I don't find it.
 * It took me half an hour to do all those sources. I have mabye 3 hours into the site.
 * I am going to focus on what is blatantly wrong or biased, then I will focus on the main page.
 * Not to spray, just to illustrate my perspective on sport trad issues. I'm a trad that use to freesolo, and not to long ago, I was sport climbing 5.13
 * don't leave this at the top of the new page
 * Have a nice day. Thinredline 23:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Make up your minds (please)
You people are too funny. First you want sources to the point of badgering me, then when I do add them you tell me not to. Then you say more then one source is better. Then when I provide multiple sources, you decide you only want one and then you delete the higher quality sources first?

Then you post all these notices for stuff that is exactly like other pages with similiar subjects. E.g. the history section is identical to the format used for Mountaineering. And as far as no how to's. what do you call this? Rappelling

(Will, any interest collaborating on the article? At this point you seem like the good guy...and your actions seem to have been in line with the site reality). Thinredline 03:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake to lump a motley crew of diverse individual volunteers with different opinions and styles together. We are not the borg. We disagree and revert each other. We even disagree on fundamental issues. For instance I think the more direct quotes are used the better. This is a minority viewpoint on Wikipedia. The key is to try to make progress in making articles better. Being flexible helps with that goal. Being nice to each other helps too. WAS 4.250 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for what you did. If I can find something done in the right way, it makes it easier to duplicate it on other pages. I can tend to be a little obsessive; sometimes in a good way, sometimes not.  As far as direct quotes from an appropriate person, I agree for specific comments,  but not background info. Thinredline 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome. It is obvious that you are trying to help Wikipedia to be a better encyclopedia. We give wide latitude to people like you that we can see are trying to help with the goal of Wikipedia being a great encyclopedia. Just remember to treat others like you want them to treat you and you will find Wikipedia to be a fun and rewarding place. WAS 4.250 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think ropes were in use very early in the 19th century. Might check on this. Silentrunner 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The date I keep getting for for the use of pitons is 1900 even, so it would make sense that a rope was in use well before that. I bet someone was dragging a rope in 1492 for that matter. A new bit of info
 * In 1927, Laurent Grivel, a climbing guide and blacksmith in Chamonix, France,

used bolts on the first ascent of Pére Eternal, a 200-foot spire on the north ridge of the Aiguille de la Brenva.
 * also if you want to make a page. click on a red link to make one, Thinredline 02:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I took a shot at the grades section. I am not attatched to it.
 * I replaced the following. Don't know if anyone wants to do anything with this stuff.

globalize/USA

Climbers grade the difficulty of the routes they climb. The grading system used varies from country to country (and region) and according to the style of climb. See also grade (bouldering). Grade opinions can vary from person to person. This phenomenon can be seen frequently in climbing gyms where grading will vary vastly between gyms.

In the United States, a basic rock climbing rating system, called the Sierra Club system, covers a range from walking to aid climbing:


 * Class I:hiking;easy walk
 * Class II:advanced hiking
 * Class III:hands used many times (travel is over rocks and boulders)
 * Class IV:rope and belay system must be used
 * Class V:leader protection nessesary;
 * Class VI:gear is used for progress, balance or resting

This was developed into the Yosemite Decimal System, which has gradations of 5th class (Class V, above) climbing. Although the rating should be based on incremental increases, that is a 5.1 climb should be slightly harder than a 5.0 climb, in reality most climbs between 5.0 and 5.5 tend to be very easy whereas climbs between 5.5 and 5.15 often have as much increase in difficulty between the individual decimals as found between 5.0 and 5.5.


 * 5.0 - 5.5 : Easiest climbing - perhaps exposed. Requires minimal athletic ability.
 * 5.6 - 5.7 : More demanding, but appropriate for most beginning rock climbers if they are fit.
 * 5.8 - 5.9 : The top of the scale in the mid 1950s, now quite accessible to most climbers with a bit of training.
 * 5.10 - 5.11: Within a year many climbers can attain these benchmark levels, particularly in gyms.
 * 5.12     : Severe - requires special skills & efforts; attainable, in theory, by most athletic, dedicated climbers (Ref: Eric Horst).
 * 5.13 - 5.14: Elite class - usually requires appropriate genetics and intense training.
 * 5.15     : The top of the scale - at present.

For routes rated between 5.0 and 5.9, a "+" or "-" was sometimes added to indicate that the route is hard or easy for the grade respectively. For example, a route rated 5.7+ is harder than most 5.7's but may not be quite hard enough to be considered 5.8.

Grades 5.10 and up, however, are typically divided into a, b, c, and d subgrades commonly known as "letter grades"(examples: 5.10b, 5.12c, 5.13d, etc.) with "a" as the easiest and "d" as the hardest. Plus or minus designations are sometimes used in place of the letter grade, especially on routes that are not frequently climbed.

The Yosemite system is used mainly in North America. Other regions, notably Great Britain, France and Australia, use different grading systems. Distinct forms of grading are also used for mountaineering and bouldering.

Bouldering grades
There is no common bouldering grading technique in current use; however, in the 1950's boulderer John Gill devised a B1 through B3 grade where B1 would cover easier boulder moves, B2 would indicate extreme difficulty (a climb or series of moves that is on the cutting edge of climbing). The B3 grade was reserved for climbs that were done only once. If a B3 climb was repeated, it then became the standard for B2.

The B-Scale never caught on beyond the US, and with the newer, open-ended V-Scale developed in the early 1990s in Hueco Tanks, the B-Scale has fallen out of use. The B-Scale is sometimes still mentioned in association with classic problems that John Gill developed. A few exceptional boulderers have used personal three-level scales somewhat similar to Gill's B-scale (Jim Holloway, Klem Loskot, etc)

The V-Scale - devised by John Sherman - grades boulder problems in ascending numerical order, the easiest grade being V0 (roughly 5.10a), and the current hardest, confirmed, grade being V16.

Thinredline 03:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Remember your audience
This article is definitely getting better. Just one important point (this applies especially to history and techniques): remember you are not writing for climbers, but for a general audience who may not know anything about climbing. So technical terms like jam and smear need to be explained first of all; you can then go into specifics (though technical discussions are better done in the specific subtopic articles).

A related point that I meant to make about the history above: I reckon (remember this is only my personal opinion) that it should concentrate on development of techniques, styles, equipment etc., and should avoid mentioning specific routes and grades as far as possible. A general audience won't know anything about these routes and won't understand the grading system, but will be interested in what climbers actually do and since when. This will help address the regional bias, since techniques and styles in principle apply worldwide (though obviously with variations according to region and/or rock type).

Right, I'll shut up now - I'll be away from Wikipedia for a few weeks probably, so that's my final input for a while. --Blisco 10:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sportsmanship climbing? Sheer climbing? Rock climbing?
This artice seems to be about a type of Mountaineering that I would call Sport climbing but that term is already taken. Maybe we should move it to a new title? Climbing as an encyclopedia article should include nonhuman climbing as well as non-sportmanship climbing (military, industrial, agricultural). WAS 4.250 00:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, this article used to have a token amount of material on the broader topic of climbing, . A more specific term that covers the current topic would be "Rock climbing". -Will Beback 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That would exclude ice climbing and indoor climbing. Blisco 09:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ice climbing isn't really covered in this article now anyway. Indoor climbing is generally considered a variation of rock climbing, which it siimulates. -Will Beback 17:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I recommend this article be moved to Rock climbing. WAS 4.250 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand I just had a look at this. Do we change the category to "rock climbing" and add "rock" before "climbing" in all these places? I'm getting serious second thoughts about this. WAS 4.250 18:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of work on various rock-climbing related topics, and always assumed that "climbing" was the preferred term of rock climbers (as opposed to "rock climbing"). Most of the related categories use that: Category:Climbers rather than Category:Rock climbers, for example. If that's not correct, then we should define exactly what is and isn't climbing, rock climbing etc, then do some page moves. Stevage 08:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Think about Wikipedia in a few years when it has articles on climbing as play in children, climging techniques of nonhuman primates, climbing stategies of plants, historical military climbing events (alexander the great has one such famous incident), robot climbing algorithms, etc. We need to distinguish what we are writing about from every other encyclopedia article, not merely label it with a shortened version used by people who when they talk about it leave out "rock" as assumed. The audience here is everybody, not just rock climbers. WAS 4.250 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there's precious little you can write about "climbing" that's general enough to carry all those meanings. It would end up being a disambiguation page. I guess the biggest problem is that ice climbing and climbing on buildings are very closely related to other forms of rock climbing but aren't, technically, "rock climbing". Anyway, I'm going to be bold and move this article (if possible) to rock climbing, and see if anyone has any objections. Stevage 15:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging by your contributions as a whole and this example, I'm guessing that you've taken on a classification overhaul that will take a week or two. Good luck! WAS 4.250 16:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That was actually the tail-end of a huge cleanup of Category:Climbing. My idea is to put everything in that thematic category ("stuff related to climbing") into a taxonomic subcategory (climbing techniques, types of climbing, climbing equipment, climbing knots, climbing areas...). There's a few still without good subcategories though. Stevage 08:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

History section
I will take a shot at the history section in the way you want it. Thanks Blisco for the helpful feedback. Thinredline 17:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

When I moved the history section the references disappeared. I thought I would be able to cut and paste. Any suggestions or help would be appreciated. Don't know how to revert. no hurry  Thinredline 18:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I fixed it. WAS 4.250 18:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking Good
This is looking a lot better. Thanks, Trl, for your efforts. Silentrunner 20:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. Thinredline 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: what you call it. I am finding pages I didn't know exist everyday. A lot of them were not linked in the original article. The original article had bouldering grades and comp climbing, so I was filling in the blanks, and will continue to do so Thinredline 23:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I always tell everybody to spend as much time learning as they do teaching. WAS 4.250 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography (Climbing)
I don't understand Bibliography (Climbing). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Normally I would simply be bold and mark it for deletion, but wonderful new editors who are still finding their way around here are involved so I don't wish to be rash. WAS 4.250 02:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've only just started looking at the articles on climbing so I do not want to be rash here either. It is unacceptable as it stands. However, it could be made into a usefull list. Every entry however needs to be correct - proper title, full names of authors, publisher, date and ISBN. --Bduke 02:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand the use of a bibliography, it also functions as a further reading section and a source material section. So someone could format it and complete the entries, or you could delete it. I don't reall care as I don't reall have an time investested in it. Look at what it looked like a week ago or so. Thinredline 03:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I make it a redirect to rock climbing and moved in here in case someone wishes to do somrthing with it. WAS 4.250 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography (Climbing)

 * A Slender Thread by Steven Venables
 * Annapurna. by Maurice Herzog
 * Ascent edited by Steve Roper
 * Bergsteigen: Basic Rock Climbing by R.C. Aleith
 * Big walls John Long
 * Camp 4 Steve Roper
 * Chis Jones, Climbing in North America
 * Climb: stories of survival Clint Willis
 * Climber's Choice Pat Ament
 * Climbing training for peak performance clyde soles
 * Climbing Anchors John Long
 * Climbing Everest Pat Ament
 * Conquistadors Of The Useless by Lionel Terray
 * Deborah, Mountain of My Fear Dave Roberts
 * Everest:Alone on the Summit by Stephen Venables
 * Gorilla Monsoon John Long
 * Greg Child's Over The Edge
 * High Exposure David Breashears
 * High Exposure David Breshears
 * How to Rockclimb John Long
 * In the zone: epic survival…. peter potterfield
 * Into Thin Air Jon Krakauer
 * Jerry Kucuzka's
 * John Gill: Master of Rock by Pat Ament
 * K2 Triumph and Tragedy Jim Curran
 * Kiss or kill  Mark twight
 * Lonely Challenge by Hermann Buhl
 * Lonely Victory Peter Habler
 * Lynn Hill's Climbing Free
 * Mirrors in the cliffs  ed by jim perrin
 * Moments of doubt  roberts
 * More climbing anchors John Long
 * Mountaineering Freedom of the hills
 * Mountains of My Life by Walter Bonati
 * One Man's Mountain Patey
 * Regions of the heart  rose/douglas
 * Reinhold Messner
 * Rock jocks, wall rats and hang dogs Long
 * Rock Junction Long
 * Royal Robbins: spirit of the age Ament
 * Scrambles Amongst the Alps by Edward Whymper
 * Seven Years in Tibet by Heinrich Harrer
 * Sherman exposed
 * Starlight and Storm Gaston Rebuffat
 * Stone Crusade.John Sherman
 * The Armchair Mountaineer
 * The Best of Rock and Ice an anthology Macdonald
 * The Boardman Tasker Omnibus. Peter Boardman and Joe Tasker
 * The Breach
 * The Climb Anatoli Boukreev
 * The Duke of the Abruzzi; an Explorers Life by Mirella Tenderini
 * The Games Climbers Play Lito Tejada Flores
 * Extreme alpinism marc twight
 * The Quotable Climber Jonathan Waterman
 * The Spell of the Rockies by Enos Mills
 * The Vertical World of Yosemite Galen Rowell
 * This Game Of Ghosts Joe Simpson
 * Touching my fathers soul by Jamling Tenzing Norgay
 * Touching the Void Joe Simpson
 * True Summit by Roberts
 * walter bonatti's
 * White Spider by Heinrich Harrer
 * Wizards of rock: A history of free climbing in America, Pat Ament

What!! No "A Short Walk in The Hindu Kush" by Eric Newby?? or "The Hard Years" by Joe Brown Paul venter 21:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Further Reading Section
Um'm most of those links violate the site principles for external links. Ie they are either sites like this one looking for people to add info. Or they are commercial sites pretending to be community forums. There are some good sites on the internet with fairly reliable info. My guess is most of them were added by the sites themselves or someone that isn't familiar with the sites themselves.
 * If no one objects, I am going to trash most of them and add a few more reliable ones.
 * Also, isn't there a better name for link then Further reading? Thinredline 22:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Further reading" is an excellent name for pages that simply add further information for someone wanting to go into more detail. As distinct from "Sources" when the links represent sites we're basing our article on. Generally a good idea to trash any links that don't contain decent quality, fairly extensive information. Stevage 08:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I still tend to thinks of books when I see reading, but not a big deal. Sorry about my comments earlier. Your still here so, that negates whatever complaints I had. Thinredline 16:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

inappropriate redirect to "rock climbing"
I see Marceo put a redirect to rock climbing at the top of the page. This doesn't make sense. Maybe rock climbing is a subtopic of climbing, but this article shouldn't just be chucked. --Slashme 12:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not Rock climbing, Rock Climbing. The first is a redirect here, the second is a (presumably unintentional) content fork created by Marceo on 8 September. It's not a bad initial attempt - I might go so far as to say that in some respects it's better than the mess we've got here - so I've added merge tags in the hope that the best bits might be combined from both articles. --Blisco 18:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Merger
Talk:Rock Climbing already has some discussion on this subject. Rwxrwxrwx 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * They should definitely be merged as they cover the same subject. This article is better and longer-established, but it should probably be renamed to "Rock climbing" [sic]. Rwxrwxrwx 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Initial efforts: revise History section. Here is what I removed, in case someone wants to re-insert the whole or parts of it.Silentrunner 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

By 1910, German and Italian climbers had made significant strides in rope-handling techniques, and in developing special pitons and carabiners (which had evolved from those first appearing around 1900). Circa 1910 was a busy time, with the Austrian development of rappelling, and Hans Fiechtl replacing the attached ring on pitons with an eye in the body of the piton (a design used to this day). Otto Herzog adopted the first steel carabiner used for climbing from the Munich fire brigade, Hans Dülfer devised the dulferitz technique of rappelling, and Willo Welzenbach created the standard numerical rating system based on the amount of time typically needed to complete a route (Grades I to VI).

An advocate of Free climbing, Paul Preuss - in 1913 - coined the term "artificial aid" to describe the use of mechanical aids to progress up a rock. His rule number four (of six) stated: "The piton is an emergency aid and not the basis of a system of mountaineering."

European pitons made their way across the Atlantic to the United States in 1914, when Albert Ellingwood, an American who had climbed while in England, used them to protect a route later known as the “Ellingwood Ledge” on Greyrock in Garden of the Gods Park near Colorado Springs.

Around 1927, Laurent Grivel of France, introduced and sold the first rock drill and expansion bolt.

Fred Pigott's experiments in 1927 with slinging natural chockstones and later machine nuts, for protection at Cloggy in the UK, directly led to the development of the modern device known as a Stopper.

Emilio Comici, climbing in the Dolomites(1931), was the inventor and proponent of multi-step aid ladders, solid belays, the use of a trail/tag line, and hanging bivouacs - pretty much the origin of big wall climbing and techniques. He used them to good purpose with an ascent of the 26 pitch, 4000 foot northwest face of the Civetta.

WWII led to the development of inexpensive army surplus pitons, carabiners, and the newly invented nylon rope. Nylon ropes were much stronger and less likely to break in a fall than the older natural-fiber varieties. Climbers begin to ascend more exposed and overhanging terrain.

Merging
Okay, I'm going to do it. I'll combine both articles and keep it under Rock CLimbing. Climbign section should be left as general climbing, and only link to Rock climbing. I'll try to finish it today. I'll keep most the content, just combining them both so it's on one page. Vantucci 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once upon a time, many rewrites ago, this article mentioned ice climbing, tree climbing, and suchlike. It would be nice if this article was a sort of super-disambig that listed the specific types of climbing, then sent readers off the specific types and/or shared topics, such as ropes and belaying. Stan 20:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This and rock climbing are now in a horribly-mangled situation - history has been lost by doing cut-n-paste instead of proper moves, the link to ice climbing has been lost (what, ice climbing is not a form of climbing?), and there are double redirects everywhere that need fixing. This is going to need some admin intervention, so please everybody, leave these pages alone until I can get them fixed up, then you can go back to randomly rearranging the content. Stan 14:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've begun an attempt to create more of a portal for climbing activities, rather than retaining various redundancies. Along the lines Stan recommends. Change it back if you wish.Silentrunner 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not very keen on the changes, but I think they're worth discussing rather than reverting outright. The portal idea seems ok since climbing is a big topic. However, these revisions (12/12 - 12/14) don't lend themselves to a popular culture section or a list of clubs section. That is, I don't find these sections consistent with a portal. On a different note, I thought the previous version did a nice job introducing each topic. Sure its redudant, but it allows the reader could to quickly determine if a given link would take them in the desired direction. After all, if the reader knew in advance they wanted to read about mountaineering, they wouldn't be looking at the climbing article, would they? Rklawton 05:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the two sections - cultural, clubs - seem awkward here and might be replaced by something more pertinant, more relevant to the general concept of "climbing". However, the initial section with links to various aspects of climbing is what I was after. The previous version simply had way too much redundancy with the rock climbing article, and seemed to be almost exclusively focused on rock climbing (even with the ice climbing photo). And there are additional types of climbing to possibly be added here, as well. E.g., Pole climbing (Lumberjack contests) and possibly a pole climbing for repair purposes, etc. Silentrunner 20:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Each type ought to have at least a few words describing it, just like a disambiguation page does. Also it's still worth mentioning a little of what some of the varieties have in common, such as the use of a rope for safety. Especially now, so that "roped climbing" is not confused with rope climbing. The list of organizations should perhaps migrate to specific-type pages; although some might then appear in several articles, that's OK by me. Reader interest is likely to progress as generic -> type -> club, not generic -> club -> type, don't make them click backwards. Stan 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My change
I had to remove Vertical Limit being mentioned as a popular film, because it has never been one. It's actually quite the opposite on whatever popular film website you look. --Svetovid 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Summaries
I do not believe that we need to include "using the hands and feet" or "using the human body" in each blurb about the different forms of climbing, as it is included in the opening paragraph and should be understood (or stated) that all (or nearly all) forms of climbing use the body of the climber and nothing else other than some specialized tools. We don't need to repeat it in every section. Robogymnast 21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain speed climbing
I question the addition here of a particular goal of mountain climbing. If someone removes this entry I will not object. And the reference to some individual supposedly prominent in this sport is not appropriate. Do an article on this aspect of mountaineering and put such info there.Aztecgirl 04:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is it inappropriate? It is normal to add details of individuals who introduced particular activities and to move it out to another article when the section gets large. That has not happened here. I am not going to revert your edit as I am not active on this article but I support the reverting of the removal of the information about the individual. --Bduke 05:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I've heard of people trying to achieve a number of summits in a limited time, I've never heard of "mountain speed climbing" per se. Do we have a source for it? ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 06:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The individual whose name appeared most certainly did not create this aspect of mountaineering. Climbers have been doing this sort of thing for many years. For example, in 1939 Holyoke and Hawkes set a speed record for the Grand Teton - 5 hr 22min round trip from beginning of trail - that endured for some time. Independent observers verified this record. More recently, records are regularly set and beaten for the "Grand Traverse" in the same range. Hence, I recommend against citing him as was done originally in this entry.Aztecgirl 07:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove "Mountain speed climbing" since it is more a goal of climbing than a separate type of climbing. There are speed climbing contests in rock climbing as well, and the proper place for a description would be in the article entitled "Rock climbing". The proper place for a description of "Msc" would be in the article on mountain climbing.Aztecgirl 01:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. --Bduke 02:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

camminando camminando questo e il secreto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.165.7 (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Climbing for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Climbing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Climbing (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 10:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Untitled

 * Archive 1 (June–October 2006)

Specify more detail
With the number of climbing methods listed in this article, I feel there is a lack of explanation of their uses or the history behind them. Many of these different methods of climbing have their own origin stories and there were many mistakes and lessons learned between all of them. I feel that only defining the types of climbing and giving a short description of them does not give the reader an idea of how diverse these methods can be. Eliotwilliams10 (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)