Talk:Index of climbing topics/Archive 1

self-link
What's the reason for having a self-link? RedWolf 01:21, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Good question. I was just about to delete it, but then I saw the appeal not to delete. Hmm. --snoyes 01:26, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It seems a common practise on the list of ... pages. I am guessing that it is so the page turns up on its own "related changes" page. Stewartadcock 01:59, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Why is this necessary? Why not just use the page history? - dcljr 22:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

AMS
I'd be inclined to change AMS to altitude sickness as that article already exists and basically covers the same information. RedWolf 02:55, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)
 * You have been preempted! :) --snoyes 03:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Climbing Glossary
I'm thinking maybe we should create an article called "Climbing Glossary" to describe a number of these topics that usually only need one or two sentences to describe. Otherwise, we are going to have a lot of stubby articles. RedWolf 03:02, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I though the same thing yesterday... and even started creating one!  (great minds must think alike ;) )  I'll let you know when I have made progress. Stewartadcock 20:06, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * User:Stewartadcock/Climbing_glossary is work-in-progress (~25% complete), but is this the kind of thing that you were considering? I'd also suggest that we delete all the red links (unless they point at an article that should be written) from this climbing topics page and instead point people towards the glossary. Stewart Adcock 20:52, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I would suggest mini-glossaries written into the most relevant articles, for define "zipper fall" in protection (climbing). Anything that could have a photo will eventually want its own article serving as "carrier" for the pic, for instance chickenhead. (At some point I should take photos of my now-historical pieces of pro, they should be good for a chuckle.) Stan 21:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * One issue we should discuss before making the glossary official, how to setup the items in the glossary for reference by links? Two possibilities are either just linking to the alphabetic section marker (e.g. climbing_glossary#A) or creating a subsection marker for each entry so that it then becomes climbing_glossary#Arête). Other suggestions? RedWolf 05:18, Nov 20, 2003 (UTC)


 * I've been running with the latter option. Stewart Adcock 17:01, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nunatak
What's Nunatak? Is it anything besides a trade name? Stewart Adcock 17:04, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * A mountain or rock that protrudes through an ice field. Also popular as a trade name, going by Google. :-) Stan 17:33, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Learn something everyday... Stewart Adcock

Item deletion
Unless someone objects relatively soon, I'll delete the items from this page that don't deserve their own article. Stewart Adcock 04:54, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * As long as the to be deleted items are on the climbing glossary and are not already articles, I don't see a problem with doing that. RedWolf 05:04, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)


 * Since the terms are already typed in, might as well keep them; those not deserving articles are mostly worthy of being mentioned in other articles (for instance climbing command) and connected via redir, and lists like this are a handy way of keeping score. Oftentimes those are organized as A - B - C instead of bulleted lists, for compactness and to pick out the reds more easily. Stan 05:06, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes. I was thinking of more obscure things (like "layback", for example, which is already covered in the new glossary, should be covered in the "climbing techniques" article, and doesn't deserve its own article, or even a redirect).  With respect to you comment about organisation, maybe you are right - it could be made more compact... Stewart Adcock 05:20, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dash versus bar
Regarding the change from using dashes to vertical bars, I was initially tempted to use vertical bars but changed to dashes just because I seemed to find more list pages with dashes than bars. I could not find any "style guide" in my brief search to resolve the issue. I don't have a problem with the change just that I think the preferred convention should be documented somewhere. RedWolf 05:41, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

Pecker
"Pecker" is currently a redirect to penis, which I suspect is not the meaning intended. Is this referring to the placement tool from Black Diamond? Perhaps a glossary item should be added and the link here changed to point to that until someone wants to write up a separate article on it? RedWolf 09:05, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've got absolutely no idea what a "pecker" is. I say delete it, on the basis that it must be really obscure.  There is a record of it on this talk page now and anyone writing an article (or, glossary item) for it can add it back. Stewart Adcock 20:14, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I found one other climbing tool called "Pecker" from Petzl. For now, both references are just product names and do not seem to denote a general purpose climbing topic/term. Thus, I removed the entry from the list. As you say, if someone feels it should be added back, they can handle the article creation and wording. RedWolf 09:20, Jan 3, 2004 (UTC)

Category
Isn't this kind of list better created using a Wikipedia category? See, for example, Category:Massachusetts.
 * The problem with categories is that you can't have "red links". In this context, it is valuable to list topics that we should have articles about, as well as those that already have. Another benefit of lists, though not used here, is that they can be annotated. -Willmcw 07:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not an index of articles
Calling this page an "index of climbing articles" makes no sense at all when a third of the entries have no articles. Propaniac (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See the above comment under "Category". RedWolf (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to have anything to do with my point. I'm not saying there's anything wrong (or right) about having this list of topics; I really don't care either way. But it doesn't make sense to call it an index of articles, when a third of the things listed aren't articles, they're just redlinks. It's like going to the index at the back of a book and finding a lot of topics listed with no page number because they're not actually mentioned anywhere in the book. If you climbing people want to keep it that way, that's fine; I just wanted to point out that it's silly and you can do with that what you will. Propaniac (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)