Talk:Nordic walking

History re-written
With the recent discovery of new documents, it seems that the history of nordic walking has been re-written. It turns out that it has been widely plagiarised over the course of almost 20 years. The Finnish organisation TUL (tul.fi) has just recently made these unearthed documents available to the public (http://tul.fi/Koulutus/Materiaalit/Vanhojamateriaaleja.aspx). To sum it up, rather then in 1997, nordic walking was created in 1974. This claim will be back up by the chief-editor of TUL, whose contact number can be found on the TUL homepage.
 * (Note: The only problem is that these reference materials are currently available in the Finnish language only, but if you visit the equal Finnish wiki article "Sauvakävely", you will see that they are accepted.) KMuuli (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Contsant vandalization
Since the page is being constantly vandalized could some protection be placed upon it. THank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing
The pole walking history is unmistakably and deeply connected with the individual Marko Kantaneva. The argument that pole walking is a sport that developed over time, is quite simply false and unproven (without factual evidence). While the sport does use principles that were known before, the sport itself did not exist until Marko Kantaneva created a scientific piece about it (describing the sport, the proper equipment (with specifications) etc.). Who ever keeps reediting the page and completely deleting this is quite clearly trying to cover up some proven facts (while they keep uploading unproven statements in turn). Please could the page be monitored by a competent individual and whoever is continuously and stubbornly reediting this page, I strictly suggest you to follow a bit of common courtesy and contact me if necessary to fix any statements that you aren't happy with (provided you can prove them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Misleading statements in article
Pole walking "pioneer" references are ridiculous and Wikipedia is not place for exaggeration and myth. The true pioneers were the Scandinavian Ski Coaches that had their athletes utilizing poles for training when deprived of snow - they are the true pioneers. Also the thousands of Europeans utilizing ski poles for hiking for decades could be considered pioneers. Pole walking was popular in Europe long before Nordic Walking ever arrived on the scene. Let’s be real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkiCoach (talk • contribs) 06:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm no expert on walking with poles, and I've no sources to quote from here, so I'm not going to change the article, but I'd like to raise a point or two for those of you who are better at this sort of thing to look into that I think are a bit suspicious. This sentence: "Nordic Ski Walking produces up to a 46% increase in energy consumption compared to walking without poles" seems strange to me. It would imply that when you compare like for like, nordic walking is vastly less efficient (46% less efficient) than walking without poles. From experience doing nordic walking, this just isn't the case - no one outside a fitness class would use poles if it was - mountaineers use them on difficult ascents, adventure racers use them in distance races, because they are more efficient. So the idea that they use 146% the energy vs walking without them is very misleading. Either this stat is wrong, or is not comparing like for like, in which case it should be noted in the article. I don't have access to the source referenced, but would ask anyone who does to investigate.

The other criticism, in the same vein, is "significant increases in heart rate at a given pace" listed as a benefit - again, this is a very suspicious fact, as that would mean they are significantly less efficient than walking without them (pace at a given heart rate is in some sense a measure of efficiency). This would seem unlikely, as I've used poles, and they don't reduce efficiency significantly, they seem to increase it; again, this is shown by their use in endurance walking events. Whatever about the 'significant' increase in HR/pace, there's no way the stat about 46% increase in energy consumption is true in the typical case - certainly if you walk with two poles that weigh 10kg each, it would be, but not common sub500g poles. Again, I don't have research or studies to cite here, and I'm not going to put original content into wikipedia, but something is very wrong with the implications of this article, and I'd ask someone else to consider fixing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.49.97 (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can understand your puzzlement about how Nordic walking burns more calories than comparable walking without poles. I have seen references to research indicating that Nordic walking does burn more calories, anywhere from 25% to 75% more, depending on how much work one puts into the poles. But while that indicates Nordic walking is less efficient from a caloric perspective, the use of poles while hiking may still facilitate hiking and make it possible to cover longer distances more easily. This is because using the arms takes some of the work away from the lower body. The hiker may have eat more during or after hiking to replenish the extra calories consumed, but this may be more than compensated for by fresher legs and less stress on the lower body joints, tendons and ligaments as well as better balance. This is a broader perspective on efficiency than simply calories. A car that gets 25% more miles per unit of fuel than another may not be overall more efficient if you have to change its oil and tires twice as often as the car consuming more fuel. Gary (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Darwinism?
Am I the only one that sees the rather odd little red herring, rather sourceless anti-darwinism argument in the middle of there? Where did that come from? Can we have a source on that? O_o -- 151.203.190.88 04:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been fixed soon after (edit 124586765)-- era (Talk | History) 11:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Discuss!
This is a very interesting article, I'd love to discuss how to make it better. For example, I came up with the idea of incorporating weighted clothing with this, ideally beginning with wrist weights, although vests and backpacks and shoulder weights could work. They would require some modifications in gait, but would add variety to training progressively off and on. Tyciol 15:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little disturbed by the fact that someone keeps changing the page to make it sound like telescopic poles are a second best choice. The copy they put in sounds suspiciously like a commercial site that sells single length poles. If your product is really competitive you wouldn't have to market this way, now would you? Let's keep Wikipedia as a reference source not an infomercial! -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.193.219 (talk • contribs). — Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I also find it disturbing that Bernd Zimmermann of the American Nordic Walking Association and someone from the International Nordic Walking Association INWA, Leki and Exel keep rewriting history to appear as it they invented the sport and use Wikipedia to sell their products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.251 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to above comments: I don't think the person was "marketing" one-piece poles. The person sounds like they know what they are talking about. Have you tested poles? Adjustable poles are NOT as safe as one-piece poles - ask the hundreds of backpackers that have tumbled when their telescoping poles collapsed unexpectedly. I have tested adjustable poles and they are heavier, clunky (make annoying noises from their twist lock systems)and some don't hold the position they are set at.

Ever seen a ski racer with adjustable poles? I'm giving nordic walking poles as Christmas presents and they won't be adjustable/telescoping/adjustable poles.

SWIX and Excel make the world's best ski racing poles and they tell the truth about one-piece nordic walking poles being better - lighter and safer. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.103.6.114 (talk • contribs). — Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Mentioning and endorsing specific manufacturers makes the commercial nature of the comments and post pretty clear. Make the article neutral or flag it as advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.0.8.151 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Cheap and badly-designed adjustable poles are definitely inferior to quality one-piece ones. The same goes for cheap one-piece poles, etc,etc. I have always been partial to Swix one-piece Nordic walking poles, but having tried some quality LEKI ones, such as the Speed Pacer Vario, the Instructor, and even the Traveller, haven't experienced any problems whatsoever. A properly-designed locking mechanism will lock and hold safely, providing it has been tightened sufficiently. As a matter of fact, the LEKI Speed Pacer Varios, which adjust (rather than collapse) within a 20 cm range have become my favorite poles as of late. They swing at least as well as my beloved, and well-used Swix CTs and in addition, they allow dialing in the length, for different terrain conditions and for a different workouts. So, in short, I would suggest that we talk about quality vs cheap poles, rather than about adjustables vs one-piece models. MZalewski —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.75.125.150 (talk) 02:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not have an opinion on anything. If there is a broad, general consensus that that certain kinds of poles are better than others, we should cite sources for that; if there is not, we should include both points of view and avoid supporting either opinion ourselves. Of course, citing sources is crucial again. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone
I moved the "inappropriate tone" tag up to the top of the article - I'm pretty sure that lines like "Mind you, there is a difference in Tom Rutlin's technique and the "scandinavian" Nordic Walking technique." aren't what you'd expect in an encyclopedia. I'm also getting the feeling that the article may not be entirely neutral; pole walking was certainly done before 1988, although it wasn't called "nordic walking" then. Someone who knows more about this than I do should rewrite this article. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 20:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone no longer exists
The examples of "inappropriate tone" given here have been removed or changed. I don't believe this is a concern now. Gary (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Nordic walking links
It has become all too obvious that someone is consistently removing all Nordic walking links from the article on Nordic walking and substituting the International Nordic Walking Association (INWA). For everyone's information, INWA is simply a front for the pole manufacturer Exel and despite the name, not really the "International Nordic Walking Association". There could be a number of useful links in that article, including anwa.us, poleabout.com, nordicwalkingus.com, Exerstrider.com and others, even INWA... Is there a way to control the people from INWA, so other useful links, besides theirs also appear and stay within the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzalewsk (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm probably as guilty as anyone of removing external links from the article. See, I believe that WP:LINKS, WP:SPAM, WP:COI and WP:NOT, jointly and severally, are pretty clear. Wikipedia is not a repository for external links. Now, after looking more deeply into the INWA site, I see that you're correct that Exel and a couple of other companies bankroll that site. Of course, the exact same thing is true for the ANWA site, which you seem to feel is all right. In any case, I've looked at each of the sites you've suggested and, in my opinion, none of them is appropriate for inclusion as external links on the page, INWA probably included. If you read the guidelines I linked to, you'll see that, if there's a site with information you think would be useful to include in an article, the best thing to do is to expand the article to contain that information and use the website as a reference. Of course, it's a lot more work to expand, format and copyedit articles than it is to simply slap external links onto them. That's why there are literally thousands of spammers who troll Wikipedia for the sole purpose of slapping external links onto articles in the hope that they will draw hits to their site; whose only edits are adding external links or whining about their links being removed. As I read those guidelines, however, the purpose of the External links section is solely to link directly to the subject of the article. For example, in the Nikon article, a link to the Nikon corporate website is appropriate. Links to blogs that discuss Nikon equipment or sites that sell Nikon equipment would not be. In addition, the External links section could be used to temporarily store a link with useful information until an editor has time to work it into the article. For an article such as this one, the only external links I think should permanently be attached are links to non-commercial associations or educational institutions teaching about the subject. If you can find some of those, they're highly unlikely to be removed. Sites, however, that include advertising for equipment or that promote or sell equipment, excursions, books, etc, are wholly inappropriate. So, in an effort to placate your sense of injustice at having the INWA link in the article, I shall remove it forthwith. &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 01:57, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

German study questions "significant un-weighting of hip, knee and ankle joints"
That is named as one of the benefits in the article. But the corresponding German Wikipedia article refers to a study (in German) which investigated the positive aspects of the use of poles to your joints. The study says, that there is no significant benefit: Joints study —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.191.127.148 (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

New link of the study: http://www.bad-sassendorf.de/nordicwalkingfeldstudie.html --78.54.123.185 (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

American Nordic Walking System style section should be removed
I believe this section should be removed. It does not describe a new style, rather a hybrid of the Exerstrider and European styles. It could be seen as more commercial than informative as an attempt sell particular types of Nordic walking poles. Gary (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Once the "commercial" tone is removed The American Nordic Walking System definately should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.171.188 (talk) 15:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not see that the American Nordic Walking System is a unique style of its own that is different from the hybrid of the Exerstrider and Finnish styles already described. I therefore see no justification for including it in the article. Gary (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

More typical marketing hype spam regarding Nordic Walking
Nordic Walking Pole "Pioneer" type lingo doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The Exerstrider Poles may be great poles, but they were originally heavy downhill ski poles with heavy strapless molded grips. We could say that the "REFLEX" downhill ski pole company invented the 1st Nordic Walking Poles, but that would be silly - just as silly as calling people Nordic Walking Founding Fathers, Nordic Walking Queens and Nordic Walking Pioneers. The ski coaches in Scandinavia deserve the credit for successfully introducing and fine tuning ski walking and hill bounding with poles - decades prior to Nordic Walking coming onto the scene. So let’s drop the marketing hype and keep Nordic Walking clean and simple. Less hype and more walking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.129.63 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Description section should be removed
I believe this section should be removed. The only source this section has cites to a false supplement to an article in an edition of a real magazine. My reasons for believing such is that the only websites that contain any mention of this supplement are websites that profits through sales of nordic walking poles or related health items. Similiarly to the Benefits section, I think, though I haven't decided whether or not I'll put in the time to research those links too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.151.179.5 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Out of options
I seem to be at a loss now. As I face being blocked if I properly edit the page, I am encouraged to discuss/dispute over the article's contents with my "edit-warring" opposition Natashadashenko who is answering to absolutely no messages, without exception. In resolution the article is largely faulty and there's nothing to do about it. KMuuli (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain (This is the help I've gotten so far, which really isn't a lot)

"I'm writing to figure out what was so bothersome about my edit of Nordic Walking. What instances were promotional and what where unsourced, because you reverted my edit back to FALSE information. Read through the history (of my edit) compare it to this one and contact me ASAP. The whole claim that "Nordic walking is defined as fitness walking with specially designed poles. It developed from an off-season ski-training activity known as ski walking, hill bounding or ski striding to become a way of exercising year-round. Ski walking and hill bounding with poles has been practiced for decades as dry land training for competitive Nordic skiers. Ski coaches saw the success of world class cross country skiers who used ski poles in the summer for ski walking and hill bounding and it became a staple of off-season Nordic ski training." is utterly false as there is concrete evidence that tells otherwise. Carefully read through the edit and instead of bluntly reverting it FIX IT to a more fitting state. The information provided is sufficient and sourced (if not tell me exactly what isn't). Further I can provide more sources to those health benefits, but they are benefits of Nordic Walking, not Exerstriding. Exerstriding and Nordic Walking are NOT the same thing. KMuuli (talk) 07:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I'm only able to view and edit by phone at the moment; I'll re-review and respond more fully when I'm back to my regular computer (hopefully this evening). --- Barek (talk) - 18:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Again I need to point out Barek, that you are very fast to take action against, but not for the improvement of the article. And that is deeply discouraging. When will I get an answer, since Natashadashenko is clearly interested only in reverting it (no answers thus far). Also when will a discussion start? When can I get in contact with a "competent" individual to finally correct the article into a fitting state for the public. Because it is bothersome also, that thus long it is still showing wrong information (in all honesty I'd completely remove the page from prying eyes until it can be fixed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Take it to the article talk page. I attempted to make more precise edits, and you reverted past those with no attempt at discussion of those edits. As you appear to have deemed me as not "competent" and choose to insult me, I see no value in attempts at discussion on my talk page. Do not post on this page again, as your edits here will be ignored and removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)"

My answer to this would be. As a senior editor Barek should know that I had to revert the page in order to avoid being blocked by "edit-warring" but if you have been "insulted" as you say, then I have no say in this. As you can clearly see, there was never any real attempt at contacting one (since Natashadashenko is out of reach) of the warring sides to DISCUSS (as I've been encouraged to do so many times) through what is right and what is wrong with the edits. KMuuli (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (NOTE: ALL MY CLAIMS AGAINST BAREK I TAKE BACK. THE SENIOR-EDITOR WAS TRYING TO HELP, AND I IN MY "EDIT-WARRING" FRUSTRATION FAILED TO SEE THAT. I APOLOGIZE TO BAREK AND GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR HIS HELP, DESPITE MY IGNORANT, THOUGH UNINTENTIONAL INSULTS.) KMuuli (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * KMuuli, as I mentioned at WP:ANI, lets just forget all that and put it behind us. I'll try to be more responsive here on the talk page to assist - but keep in mind that we are in different time-zones, and due to travel there are many times when I can only view/edit Wikipedia from my phone, which is difficult to say the least (my fingers are too big to type easily on a tiny phone). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Health benefits
I removed the health benefits section as there wasn't a reliable third-party source for that content, as well as removed some of the promotional wording to try to bring it to a more neutral wording. The problem with the health claims is that they don't seem to be published by any third-party reliable sources. The original author apparently has data on it, but that would be a primary source, so not really usable for encyclopedic content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned before, I can provide that third-party. I just need sometime to look the sources/files up and I will contact then. I would like to know as well, that is it basically okay (not that I'm planning any now) to make edits again. In the sense that I don't know what happens with the "edit-warring" block warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues with your continued editing at this time. Just remember that Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines; when in doubt, it's usually best to drop back to discussions on the article talk page, or if not getting traction there to review WP:DR for tips on getting others to help review a situation. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Some credit for the author's

 * Note: The following comment (before any replies) was copied to here from user talk:Barek

I agree with what you said on the Administrator's noticeboard, it's behind us. Now I have no clue on how to do this without sounding promotional, but seeing as the piece was written by Marko Kantaneva and the first fitness walking poles were produced by Tom Rutlin (who is basically also mentioned), I think they should be mentioned on the page in some manner. About the promotional wording and promotional claims, I am sure I can find an even better source for those benefits (as under the article's talk page there was some mention of people not believing it. KMuuli (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Originally, Marko Kantaneva was mentioned repeatedly throughout the article; in my effort to clean that up, I should have retained one mention.  How about rephrasing the second sentence in the "history" section to read:
 * While trekkers, backpackers and skiers had been using that basic concept decades before, the sport wasn't formally defined until the publication of "Sauvakävely" by Marko Kantaneva in 1997.
 * I think that would give appropriate credit, while not overwhelming the article with mentions of his name. Look okay to you? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would do it. (NOTE: I didn't even realize not to use his name all the time before, but I see now how it sounded promotional, seeing as he isn't so obviously famous it would have been advertising.) KMuuli (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Verification needed
Reading through the article again sometime later now I'm pleased to see that appropriate edits are finally being made. However, the statement: "Both Exerstriding and Nordic Walking are based on extensive written and proven research work, but the two utilize slightly different techniques and equipment so are commonly misinterpreted as synonymous." seems to be unverified. Thus far, and I apologize upfront if this is due to my lacking research, I have yet to see a certified work about Exerstriding by Tom Rutlin (equal to "lets say" Marko Kantaneva's "Sauvakävely", basically a piece that defines Exerstriding the way Nordic Walking was defined). Furthermore under the benefits section: "Compared to regular walking, Nordic Walking - also called poling, pole walking or urban poling, involves applying force to the poles with each stride." behind Nordic Walking brackets should be added with the following "Note: These benefits apply to Nordic Walking only and should not be taken as the basis for other sports/exercises using poles." Lastly I suggest the part where the "other names/ nicknames" of the sport are enlisted should also be moved into brackets.

''Note: I explain the changes here before applying them. I'll be checking back regularly for some constructive critisism on the matter, if none is presented after a week or so (also objections are welcome) then i'll go a head and apply the changes.''


 * The differnences between Nordic Walking and Exerstriding seem clear and well defined.

Can you provide a source evidencing that the benefits don't apply to other sports/exercises using poles? This seems rather unlikely to me. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

No technique so far
I realized, while editing this article a few moments ago, there's no technique section. As the technique is often misinterpreted and used in a faulty manner I think it is an important section to have. The proper technique would probably need some pictures that describe the actions better as well. Also, this section would help people understand the difference between Exerstriding and Nordic Walking, should the question arise. On another note all references to urban poling point to Exerstriding. Notice the locked elbows, pointing to Exerstriding technique. Even further there is no reference to the word urban poling nor poling in any dictionary. Could someone also look into this matter. If poling does get approved then it stays, but urban poling definitely refers to Exerstriding, thus Nordic Walking is not also called urban poling, it is a different sport. KMuuli (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Since there was no negative feedback, nor any to be honest, I uploaded a technique section to the article. This is simply a basis description of the correct Nordic Walking technique and is welcome to more specific edits, especially referenced edits. But for the time being I think it will do. KMuuli (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Last equipment edit
I further edited the equipment paragraph. I am aware that the material is unreferenced and it is based on what I've found while browsing through the web. Sadly none of the pages are reference credible. Hopefully the new edit is unbiased and will be used as a basis for further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 13:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification
After a bit of brain-storming on the common misconceptions topic I noticed something that may or may not be necessary to the article. Should the word "original" be placed at the very beginning of the article, because nowadays there is Exerstrider (mentioned in the article), something called urban-poling and also a wide variety of wrong or full out unhealthy techniques (after a brief scan through YouTube). So the article would begin "Original nordic walking..." opposed to "Nordic Walking..." As usual, I'll wait a week, if no feedback is given I'll go ahead and make the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KMuuli (talk • contribs) 12:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Soft vs. hard tips
"Nordic walking poles come with removable rubber tips for use on hard surfaces and hardened metal tips for trails, the beach, snow and ice"

Surely the hardened metal tips are for use on hard surfaces and the (wider / larger surface area) rubber tips for use on the soft surfaces mentioned as the harder (more pointed) tips would dig / sink in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.96.31 (talk) 14:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This whole article reads like an advertisement
Considering Nordic Walking just requires a comfy pair of trainers and a pair of sticks, it seems to have a massive and competitive industry built around it with associations that operate more like gym clubs... This whole article reads like advertising promoting the activity rather than as a neutral description of a sport and exercise activity. Stub Mandrel (talk) 12:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so too. Poles and wooden canes has been used for walking since the dawn of man. This is not a new thing, or even a Scandinavian thing -- well, at least if you exclude having to using two poles, and require the poles be former skiing poles. Having people sell you a "technique" for this reeks of snake oil. With that said, being from Scandinavia I've seen quite a few people walk like this on the various mountain paths over here, so I guess it at least bears mentioning as a cultural phenomenon. --Kebman (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Antishock?
For nordic walking, should I buy poles with or without an antishock system? The article does not address this question yet. Thanks! 85.194.243.243 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Equipment recommendations are outside the scope of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Country Members?
Members of *what*? There's no reference in the article to anything where anything/anybody can (and/or should) be a member. It's just a freaking list without motivation. --jae (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Two older adults nordic walking.jpg

translation

 * translation: "A part of cross-country skiing training methodic"

this isn't an English phrase, so it can't be a translation! Is it in the wrong order, or is "methodic" supposed to be a noun? Marnanel (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)