Talk:Handspring (gymnastics)

There is an existing stub Flic flac, which doesn't present more information, than the "Back handspring" section of this article. I suggest either to remove all the information and redirect ff to this article; or rename ff article to "back handspring" and move all related information from this article there. Cmapm 05:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've implemented the first variant. If the second one or some other way is preferrable, say this here, please, or implement it yourself. Cmapm 08:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * added some technical info .... good to see someone doing a gymnastics technique section. (olive 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

I added that handsprinds are also used in cheeerleading Itsawayoflife 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

External links: spam?
I removed the link to "Drills and exercises for learning front and back handsprings" because it appears to violate two primary tenets of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. To wit: After removing the link, user 24.93.135.96 immediately added it back into the article. I don't want to start an edit war here and it's possible I have misjudged the value of the link. Can a disinterested party give a second opinion here, please? Lambtron (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The target site is purely a "howto," so it doesn't provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * The target site is loaded with links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.


 * The same dubious link was recently added again, and was again reverted. Second opinions? Lambtron (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I am doing this correctly, but I have discovered the talk feature and the notes you made above, which explains why the link is not allowed. I have changed my contribution instead to reflect on how handsprings are important in cheerleading rather than a link to how-to information. Would you please review this and see if the information is in the right place and if it is considered a valuable contribution to the article?

I will remove the how-to link I added last year to a couple other gymnastic manouvres articles as well. It was suggested that they be moved to Wikiversity but I am not sure if it is right for that place either. Thank you again for your explanations. You won't see those links again. (newbie) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.135.96 (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The new Cheerleading section does appear to contain useful information, though its good to back up statements with references when possible. When deciding what info to add, keep in mind that visitors want to know things like what a handspring is and why it's notable. For example, why is the ability to perform a handspring a prized skill? Also, you mention All-Star cheerleading and the United States All Star Federation; what are these and why are they important? Are there already articles about these topics (in which case you may want to link to them here) or should you perhaps create these new articles yourself? If such articles already exist, it's usually best to put minimal info here and just link to the articles to avoid redundancy. BTW, you can create a username for yourself with minimal effort; this will benefit you in various ways if you will be doing more editing (which is encouraged!). Lambtron (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I did want to make a reference to the USASF rules site, but I couldn't figure out how to do it. I'll look it up in the help section later and also see if I can come up with a relatively concise explanation to the questions you asked, if the cheerleading wiki doesn't already address them.

A long time ago I signed up with a name and all to do some work on the cheerleading wiki, but the editing war there was just insane and I gave up on it in the end. I don't know if I can even remember my original login-in info. :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.135.96 (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Splitting out back handspring
Any objections to me splitting out the back handspring? It is a quite different technique, so instead of the clutter of bunching relatively everything in the same article, I think it would be cleaner to have separate articles. Like we also have a separate article for e.g. Cartwheel (gymnastics). Thue (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's true that F/B handsprings have technique differences, but they also have quite a lot in common. For that reason, my preference would be to keep this single article to avoid a large amount of duplication and instead split out sections on technique. Lambtron (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * What duplication would there be? - not much, it seems to me. If I were looking for information on e.g. a backwards handspring, I would be much happier to have a specific article just for that - lumping the two together is not user friendly. And AFAICT the other Wikipedia languages have separate articles for the two, so lumping them together in the English edition makes a mess of the interwiki links. Thue (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As the article stands now, a split would produce a FH article with no visual example and a BH article that is basically a copy of the FH lede. I don't object to splitting, but it doesn't seem all that useful unless the resulting BH would have enough BH-specific content to make a split imperative. In the meantime, it might make more sense to just have front handspring redirect to the associated section. That said, if you are convinced a split is needed now, I would defer to your judgement. Lambtron (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We can keep the current FH video. There is also a BH video on commons: [[File:Flickflack2a.gif]]. I will try to produce a split version, see if it makes sense.