Talk:Triathlon/Archive 1

Excessive External Links?
There seem to be more external links here than on other Wikipedia pages. I've already removed a few that I felt didn't have merit, but what about the others? All these sites are surely related to Triathlons and may have related content, but do they have some particular value that they add to the article... because I know of a lot of related triathlon sites that would fit just as easily at the bottom of the page. Oyejorge 8 July 2005 03:07 (UTC)
 * Life Time Fitness Triathlon under the "legendary and well known events" heading
 * Trifuel.com
 * Triathlon Week
 * Triaphoto
 * Transition Times

Sorry, going to have to remove that. Most people can't read hewbrew (though I'd like to, along with a million other things I'd like to be able to do!), and this is an english encyclopedia. So perhaps add it to the hewbrew encylopedia page? Mathmo 05:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * TAN - Israeli Triathlon Website TAN - Israeli Triathlon website.


 * More mention of links, currently all there is are links to local governing bodies (certainly nowhere even close to "excessive" like this sub heading originally said). Which is frankly very dry and boring for the most part, and doesn't truly give the new read a representative insight into the sport of triathlon. Hence I'm restoring a link which had just been removed of a major and widely respective triathlon magazine, and there should be more similar links added that would appropriately show off the sport of triathlon. Mathmo Talk 10:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have a major problem with the link you restored, but I'd like to add a couple of comments. First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- encyclopedias, frankly, are supposed to be dry and boring!  Second, please read Wikipedia's External links guidlines, especially "Important points to remember: 1. Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwanner (talk • contribs)
 * If you look at that link you gave you will see it is covered under "What should be linked", specifically points 3 and 4. I wouldn't say encyclopedias are supposed to be dry and boring, is just how they often turn out. And it should not be our goal for the result of wikipedia to be dry and boring throughout. Though anyway, doesn't matter too much because you don't have a major problem with the link but thought I'd reply to your points regardless. cheerio. Mathmo Talk 16:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno-- I think one could make a case that the values required of an encyclopedia-- neutral point of view, verifiability, no original research, balance, etc.,-- automatically results in dry, boring writing, especially when the final version of the writing is essentially "by committee". -- Mwanner | Talk 00:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe it is possible, just unlikely and difficult. Is more likely for less controversial articles. But for any articles where there is another editor contesting every single little word, then yes it will end up as dry and boring. Mathmo Talk 21:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please can you add http://www.k226.com  ? I find this an invaluable resource for the many other iron-distance races not run by WTC IronMan brand. Toyota_Crown  —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC).

Suggested new sections
I will also add these if anyone else agrees they belong here:
 * Other famous events, current list is obviously Western U.S.A.-biased.

(My other suggestions removed, since they've been implemented)

IdahoEv 04:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to see nothing on wikipedia about Nice, though the german wikipedia has an article. Mathmo Talk 21:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The Nice should certainly be listed among famous events. Chicago certainly doesn't belong here. Ironkids doesn't belong here, and the arch-arch challenge doesn't belong here. Lifetime fitness only belongs becase it's got the equalizer which has spread out through other races around the world. I also question whether or not Norseman belongs? opinions?? I will make these changes if there are no arguements. JKrabbe 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I made these changes, I left Norseman but the more I think about it the more I don't think it's a legendary event. Any input? JKrabbe 20:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont think that Norseman belongs in the article. It is not the toughest IM distance race in the world, it does not have a huge number of participants, and the best athletes do not compete there. It could be replaced in the article by the London Triathlon or Noosa Triathlon which are possibly the biggest events in the world based upon particpation numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * The list is pure POV so should be removed completely. If you found a list in, say, a triathlon magazine then you could base a section on that (with references of course). This list is original research so we have no check on whether the list is biased or not. This is not a consensus issue of editors deciding what races are worthy: Neutral point of view and No original research are both policy &mdash; they must be observed. Regards, SeveroTC 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The statement regarding the lifetime fitness event having the largest prize purse is also incorrect. The Des Moines ITU World Cup race has the largest prize purse. A list of notable events should still be included but only those properly referenced. I believe that it should be Ironman Hawaii, first Ironman race, London Triathlon, largest race field, Des Moines ITU, largest prise purse. All these could be easily referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Notable events should be mentioned - in the prose. A list is not the right way to go. SeveroTC 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement the Chicago does not belong under famous events. It is currently in the Guiness Book of World Records for the largest triathlon with over 8700 participants. I don't have copy in front of me so I can't get an exact number, but it does deserve to have at least a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bforner (talk • contribs) 18:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Transition zones"
Could maybe someone explain in more detail the rules of entering and leaving those "transition zones"? If I remember, there are some very strict rules, for example that you are NOT (or ARE?, I don't know) allowed to get off your bike, or maby it's the opposite, start riding the bike, before (or after?) crossing the line of transition zone? Failing to comply with those strict rules results in disqualification. Also, but again I'm not sure about it, those rules apply to running as well. Are you allowed to start running inside the transition zone or must it be after you cross the line?
 * Generally in US triathlons there is a mount/dismount zone outside the transition area. A competitor may not mount his/her bike in the transition area before reaching the mount zone. And, they must dismount before entering the transition area at the end of the bike leg. I don't know about a restriction on running. Maybe individual races impose that rule for safety, if the bike-to-run transition area is especially crowded or slippery. If you have other questions, I have found that beginnertriathlete.com is a great place to get detailed answers. FreplySpang (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

correction of the cycling part
To reason higher frequencies with the attempt to save energy for the running split seems to be obvious, but it´s not correct. Professionals at pure time trials use to cycle at high frequencies as well. High frequencies allow to keep a higher performance over a long period, as e.g. it can be seen at the Tour de France, where the best cyclists use frequencies between 90 and 100 rpm, while triathlets and duathlets usually cycle at frequencies between 70 and 95. A lower gear results in a lower force on the pedal and less necessary muscular endurance. Professional cyclists practises more to master the time trial in a region of 92-95 % of the max heart rate, while triathletes usually aren´t able to hold an anaerobe state for a long time on a bike (and of course they care about the following running split), resulting in a lower heart rate just below or slightly above the anaerobe threshold. In this state it is quite easier for the muscles to work as well with lower frequencies and higher forces, than on a stronger anaerobic level All in all tries the triathlete to save some energy for running decreasing the "final output", the power, cycling with lower heart rates.

I hope, I could make it understandable what I mean. Look to the average frequencies at the one-hour-record. (can´t find them in english right now). They are above 100.

But of course, just before the running part, the triathletes increase the frequency....but that´s not valid in general.


 * I can't tell if this change has been made? I think it's an odd issue to address, what some pros do is certainly different from what other pros do and the general public is another story. High cadence is good for high wattage in triathlon just like traditional road racing. I would suggest that the article as it reads now is correct and sufficient for this issue. Furthur discussion of the balance of cadence/power/effort doesn't belong here. JKrabbe 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

History of Triathlon
There are references, that Triathlon is based on a race in France during the 1920-1930's. That was called "Les trois sports",„La Course des Débrouillards“ and „La course des Touche à Tout“. Actually it is proceeded every year there near Joinville le Pont, in Meulan and Poissy. It´s quit anonymous, but there are articles in french newspapers about a race in Marseille (1927!!). The french newspaper L´Auto reports a competition since 1920, called „Les Trois Sports“ with a 3km run, 12km bike and a channel crossing of the river Marne. Those three parts were done without a brake. In 1934 there is an article in „Les Trois Sports“ of the city Rochelle about a race with a channel crossing (ca. 200m), a bike competition (10km) around the harbor of Rochelle and the parc Laleu then and a run (1200m) in the stadium André-Barbeau. There is a licence for Mr. Rene Taqué from Perpigan, year of issue 1927. Until the "re-invention" on Hawaii in 1978, it had been quite silent around that sport.

These two lines don't agree... "No one present had ever done the bike race so they did not realize it was a two-day, not one-day, event." and "Of the fifteen men to start off in the early morning on February 18, 1978, twelve completed the race and the world's first Ironman, Gordon Haller, completed it in 11 hours, 46 minutes, and 58 seconds." Can someone explain what they mean by a two-day event if someone finishes in under twelve hours? I didn't think there was a pause between the cycling and the running? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.238.175 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes on "Standard race distances" section
Some thoughts from Tiger Marc:
 * I left the distances in meters unless the race originated in the United States (Ironman) or was derived therefrom (half-Ironman). In that case, I used the imperial system of measurement.
 * I advocate leaving the sprint, Olympic, and ITU-Long distance races in meters only because that is how the race director would measure out those courses.
 * The Ultraman does not belong in this list for two reasons:
 * 1) It could be argued that it is not a tri because there are breaks between each course.
 * 2) It is marketed as an ultra-endurance event on the Ultraman web site -- not as a tri.


 * I do not capitalize words in the names column unless they are proper nouns.
 * I limited the Notes column to information related to the distance or the name of the race format.
 * Maybe this section should be called "Standard distances of various triathlon race formats."
 * I stole this table format from the German version of the Triathlon article. Thanks, Germany!

--Tiger Marc 05:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree on the adjustment of title. The "Nice distance" is a staple distance and doesn't appear here anymore because the ITU has been run by morons in recent years and they've swapped their distance. I guess the Nice distance would need to be it's own category, we also need to consider the fact that this distance is going to die a slow death in the next couple years but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a listing of what's current. I propose the the Nice distance needs to be in this list. I think that the equilateral triathlon, and formula one should be moved to their own pages even though they'd be stubs and linked from the nonstandard section Ultraman could be reference here. We don't give an in depth analysis of why olympic distance is olympic distance on this page so why should we devote so much effort to a couple race distances that people race extremely rarely. There's a bunch of things to think about here I guess, I'll make changes in a couple weeks if there are no furthur comments. JKrabbe 18:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * These changes were made, the F1 triathlon page has no references unfortunately. JKrabbe 19:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about the sprint distance race lengths. I've always understood a sprint triathlon to be anything shorter than an olympic distance that's open to adults (i.e. not a kids triathlon), with nothing even resembling standardized course distances. I'd be interested to know where the article got the listed ones (besides dividing an olympic distance in half). 65.46.168.254 (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you see a race advertised as "sprint distance" you can place money on a bet that more likely than not it will be off that distance stated in the article (~1/2 the distance of a standard course triathlon). Mathmo Talk 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I just know that around where I'm from (Minnesota) there tends to be a fair amount of variance, especially with the swim leg. A quite a few are 1/4, and one or two are actually even shorter than that.  For example, look at the races in the Tri Minnesota series (ignore the olympic and long-course events) (http://www.pickleevents.com/series/trimn/).
 * Another interesting note: USA Triathlon seems to currently define all their standards as ranges. (see: http://usatriathlon.org/content/index/1778) Anyway, not trying to come across as bitchy.  I was just a little surprised that there's a "standard" length for sprints, because I've never seen anyone abide by it. Farmboyjad (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ps, that was me earlier, I don't know why it doesn't show me as having been logged in when I made that last comment...

Clean-up: "Types of triathlon"
The "Types of triathlon" section needs to be cleaned up. --Tiger Marc 05:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Michaelrccurtis removed a bunch of stuff with the note: removed repitition. However I'll put it back in because it does also remove a bunch of other information that is not included in the previous section, plus taking that part out means the next sentance doesn't make much sense. Still I do agree it needs to be fixed up a little with a bit removed. Just for me that will have to wait until after exams... Mathmo 00:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had assumed the section was no longer needed. Perhaps the additional information could be added into the table? michael  Curtis talk+contributions 11:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up "References"
The "References" section needs to be turned into footnotes (ideally) or a bibliography if that cannot be done. --Tiger Marc 05:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Owen McGonagle
Who is Owen McGonagle? A quick google search produces no convincing evidence that he is truly a famous triathlete. 

size of the page
This is getting a little large, perhaps seperate sections need to be made with links to them? Two good ideas for this would be famous events and a training page. Mathmo 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

categories
What makes a category redundent? Would one of the advantages of this being listed in the sports category be that people could go to the sports category and see a list of all possible sports there? Except.... we would nolonger be listed there.... Are we not a sport? Mathmo 04:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Rules of Triathlon section editorializes and uses weasel words
The Rules section editorializes the authors opinion about the changing rules of Drafting in the sport of Triathlon. While I tend to agree with the author, it is clearly not within Wikipedia's NPOV stance for this section to say something like "Ultimately, drafting denies the viewer the spectacle of seeing through from start to finish the many individual stories of achievement ..." Who is Wikipedia to say whom has been denied anything?--Woodardj 20:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that this section is now much less POV than it used to be. I'll give this a few days for anyone to object, and then I'm going to remove the POV tag.  How does that sound?  --Rahzel 18:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have removed the POV tag from this section. Please comment here if you disagree, and we can talk about it.  --Rahzel 19:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it reads very nicely now. Good work.--Woodardj 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Notable Triathletes
This is becoming a list of every international triathlete! I have cut down a couple and I am inclined to do more. My criteria for the ones deleted was at least top 5 at an international event but this would include hundreds of people. So, either we cut the list down to a couple of well known triathletes who are distinguishable from other international athletes or we delete the list and just let people use the triathlete catagory. michael  Curtis talk+contributions 08:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As no one seems to be doing anything, I will delete this section next week if there are no objections. There should be a traithlete catagory, from which people can navigate to the links of the individuals - this section is simply too long, pointless and adds little to the article. michael  Curtis talk+contributions 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Good idea! 74.132.197.96 03:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have now removed the section as there were no objections. The triathlete catagory sohuld now be used instead of just putting every person to have appeared in an international event on this page. michael  Curtis talk+contributions 12:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What's up with this, I agree that this list of "notable triathletes" is totally bogus. it doesn't reflect accurately a list of legendary people and seems biased towards who is doing well on various circuits in recent years. We need to decide what counts here and be strict about that, or just use the category which is the natural tendency for someone who uses wikipedia alot and makes less sense for the occasional wiki-user


 * I propose that notable triathletes need to have won 3 or more world championships (be they ironman world titles, ITU world championships, or olympic gold medals.) This includes all the "great ironmen" as well as a few ITU athletes simon lessing... comments on this criteria??? 68.148.230.118 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to implement this proposed criteria for notable triathletes, 3 world championships. This includes, Michellie Jones (2 ITU 1 WTC) Erin Baker (1 ITU 2 WTC) Mark Allen (1 ITU 6 WTC) Dave Scott (6 WTC) PNF (8 WTC) Natascha Badmann (6 WTC) Simon Lessing (4 ITU) Emma Snowsill (3 ITU) Peter Reid (3 WTC) This is a list of 9 athletes, I don't believe that a list any shorter is representative of how many great athletes there are and i certainly don't agree that a list any longer ensures that all the athletes listed were actually icons of the sport. I am unhappy that Macca doesn't qualify for this list but with 1 ITU it's possible he'll pull together 2 Kona wins before retirement. Julie moss is also more recognizable than most triatheletes out there, perhaps mentioning her elsewhere in the article would be wise. JKrabbe 19:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I implemented these changes as there were no arguments in the last ten days. This is potentially a source of a bit of consternation, I saw someone added a bogus triathlete page just this past week. I'll keep an eye on it. JKrabbe 03:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This section doesn't warrant a place in the article. As it is not cited it counts as original research and cannot be determined if it is from a neutral point of view. Furthermore, if we take a look at sports articles that have achieved featured status, such as Football (soccer) and Cricket, there is no equivalent section. It needs to be removed completely. SeveroTC 18:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone recently re-inserted this section, so I have deleted it, in accordance with the above discussion. NSH001 (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Photo suggestion
I think the main photo for this page should be a triathlete in transition (ie just out of the water getting their bike). I will try to get a photo next time I am at a triathlon.--Moonlight Mile 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with you on that point, example This is a photo of mine, could use it if we want it's a bit busier than would be ideal. JKrabbe 18:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could be a handy idea, as otherwise a typical photo would not like so distinictively different from a competitor in a pure single sport would look like. Though a less "busy" photo than the one suggested would be helpfull. Mathmo Talk 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the existing main photo is a good idea, but it's extremely low resolution and hard to see. JKrabbe, I like the idea of that picture, but as you said, it's a tad busy--I imagine that it wouldn't be too hard for you to find a similar picture that would be more than suitable for the article!  --Rahzel 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I made a change to the photo in the swimming section of the page, it is now a bit more representative of the sport. I have yet to come across photos which may be used for the "main" photo of the page. JKrabbe 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I raced a couple weekends ago and have got some excellent photos that I plan to throw on here. It'll be a fantastic improvement over what we've got JKrabbe 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Implemented JKrabbe 03:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing text in Nonstandard variations section
A sentence fragment follows the line "The best-known series of these races is known as XTerra." I don't know how much text is missing or when it was lost. — Athænara  ✉  07:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed this happen a few times to this article and others, due to vandalism happening multiple times and then getting only partially fixed. Rather than trying to look up the original, I've fixed it up as I suspect it should roughly read. Mathmo Talk 12:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Professional Triathlon
We need to scrape together the broken bits of the article regarding professional triathlon. It is closely tied with the couse distances section, the notable athletes section as well a the almost embarassing "Professional competitions" section we've got at the moment. We should also eliminate saying why we can't call a full distance triathlon an Ironman 3 times from this article.

What are your ideas on how to do this?

JKrabbe 17:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Links again
Not sure why having external links to related triathlon information would be bad, even if there are several. Is not the point of this to give readers additional information? If the link is questionable or spam then surely not, but if it's a resource with more than just a forums then why would a link be removed for some but not all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshadow (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a couple reasons. WP:EL says "...it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified." and "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." and "As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter."
 * The site could meet the third bullet in the External_links section, as long as it meets 4 in the next section. It's then a judgement call if it violates 2, 5, 6 or 7 in the External_links section.  In my mind, it's a question of if the information is sufficiently reliable and accurate, but I'm not a triathlete so I can't assess the page.  WLU 12:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Pshadow's most recent edit, which cleaned out a bunch of links (including Trifuel) that were in the same category as the Trifuel link that has been reverted a few times here. I say leave the links that are there now, and not add any more unless they are "official" triathlon links, such as a link to a major governing body or whatnot.  Rahzel 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge
I came across Triathlon Distance today, which is unreferenced and possibly not needed. Can this be merged here or should it be cleaned up? Johntex\talk 21:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Triathlon Distance is a prime candidate for speedy deletion. It doesn't say anything that this article doesn't already say, plus it's poorly written.  I'm going to tag it for SD.  Good find, Rahzel 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject proposal
I've submitted an initial proposal for a new Triathlon WikiProject - see: WikiProject Council/Proposals. Many triathlon articles (including this one) are tagged with multiple sports-based WikiProject banners, however the sport doesn't exactly fit within the total scope of any of them (exception: WikiProject Sports of course...). If you're interested in assisting in improving the quality of wikipedia's triathlon-based articles, then leave your support for the project on the Proposals page. Yboy83 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Major article restructuring - discussion
As part of the new Triathlon WikiProject (go on, come join in!) this article is to be restructured and updated with an aim to attain WP:GA status for what is the foremost article of the project.

Before any major editing takes place, a discussion is being held here on the talk page to approve the structure and content of the updated article.

Yboy83 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll start. Having taken a look around some articles of other Olympic sports (Olympic sports), I put forward the following suggestion for structure and content.


 * Lead
 * Description and rules – Triathlon and Triathlon and bits of Triathlon
 * History – Triathlon, bits of Triathlon
 * Training and racing: strategy/style/techniques/athletic aproach/... – unsure of section heading, but would contain content of Triathlon and tri-specific equipment
 * Governance – about WTC and ITU
 * Competition – Triathlon, Triathlon, Triathlon, and bits of Triathlon
 * External links, References etc.


 * What do editors think? I guess it may take a while for us to get it right. Perhaps we should start a draft somewhere?


 * I'll shortly be doing a copyedit of the article to remove some of the POV/advertising etc. that this article seems to have an ongoing problem with.


 * Yboy83 (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable to me as a first go. Note that some time ago I drafted, off-wiki, a replacement for the "Standard race distances" section. IIRC, the draft needs a couple of refs to be checked - I'll post it when I've checked.
 * --NSH001 (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Article grading
I have downgraded this article from B-class to C-class. It clearly fails criterion #1 (referencing), and in my opinion it is also a borderline failure on some of the others (#2, #3, possibly #4).

I regard this as the first step in improving this article up to GA status. We will be able to give ourselves a little pat on the back when it satisfies the B-class criteria, on the way to GA status.

--NSH001 (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)