Wikipedia

Talk:Daniel Woods

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Restore of contents edit

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

I will restore Daniel Woods contents after Nathan Johnson removal (see [1]). All sources were not only reliable but among the most well known websites about rock climbing on internet. These sites were already used on en.wiki, for example:

  • usage for www.climbing.com: [2]
  • usage for www.ukclimbing.com: [3]

--Rotpunkt (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Labeling my edit as vandalism was uncalled for. Don't do it again. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
As for the substance of the removal, I disagree that we need to be listing such "notable" ascents. If the ascent was of significance (such as the first free ascent of El Cap) they should definitely be listed. But simply listing every boulder problem someone has climbed above a certain grade is an unnecessary list. Is there anything notable about these routes that make them deserve mention in this article? None of the problems have a Wikipedia article, suggesting that they are not notable. If the problem is not notable, to me it makes sense that the problems are not notable to be included in a biography. Whether or not they are "reported" in the above "reliable" sources. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • No mention of vandalism from either side, please. Now, this revert, Nathan, is a bit problematic. You have issues with the list--fine, but don't undo other valid edits, such as the change from first name to last. Blanket reverts are rarely helpful. As for the list, both of you have signed up at the Climbing project, and that's where there ought to be some discussion of what to list and what not to list. If such discussion is not there, or if it's outdated, get to work on it. You really have no choice but to find common ground, and you may have an opportunity to do something good for the project, and for Wikipedia as a whole. The relevant section, Wikipedia:WikiProject Climbing/Article Guidelines, offers very little at the moment; have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article guidelines to compare.

    One more thing: the project could do with a centralized discussion on reliable sources. Coming up with a list of sources y'all can agree are reliable is the best thing that can come out of that. You can hammer this out among yourselves (by which I mean active members of the project), and in case of disagreement, or to get a kind of confirmation, you can post a note at WP:RSN. I have no doubt that some websites are more reliable than others, that some publications are more independent of the industry than others. Once you do that, and once you set standards for what should and should not be included, there will be a lot less nastiness, and you can easily bring coherence to the entire set of articles. Good luck. And break a leg. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

    • And another thing: the project should come to an agreement on what the External links section should include, and it should be done conservatively, with WP:EL in mind--we don't need a ton of articles with a ton of links leading to every imaginable website that lists some profiles or statistics. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • No leg breaking please! It would interfere with climbing. :) I'm sorry about the intermediate edits lost that changed the last name to first name. I looked at the diff prior to reverting and didn't notice it. As for the list, as I said, I don't think it's a list that adds encyclopedic value to this article. WikiProject Climbing (as far as I know) has been defunct for quite a while. Even so, I'll start a thread on WT:CLIMBING. Sourcing wise, I picked one at random (really) [4]. Not much there. No author. Itself sourced to a blog [5]. From my experience, that's how most of these "notable climbs" sections are sourced. Poorly. It looks more like a vanity list of accomplishments than what one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Vanity ?!? At 2013 8C is the highest grade in bouldering in the world (there are only a couple of 8C+) so it IS notable. Just google "Witness The Fitness woods" or just look at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Woods (BTW you have tranlated it!). A mountaineer has a list his hardest climbs and a boulderer has a list of his hardest boulder. It wasn't a long list, only the main important boulder, like Lynn Hill or Chris Sharma. --Rotpunkt (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
About the sources: up-climbing is the website of a book publisher named "Versante Sud", writing guide book ([6]), b3bouldering was the only blog, my bad, I have cut&pasted it from fr:Daniel_Woods. I will look now for a fix for these two sources. --Rotpunkt (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think the conversation about the lists in general should take place at WT:CLIMBING, but if you look at the Lynn Hill article, all but one of the entries is sourced to climbandmore.com. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I want just to point out that the blog [7] was inserted by Nathan in the first edit ([8]), not by me. --Rotpunkt (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Good. The moment both of you put animosity aside (and rhetoric--Rotpunkt, we don't do a lot of exclamation points in the US, and we don't talk with our hands either) we'll all be much better off. Also, "A mountaineer has a list his hardest climbs"--yes, on her on website, but not necessarily here. Accomplishments are only listed if they truly are notable. I could list my hardest climbs and you'd laugh at me, but you'd have to allow it in my article, by that logic. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Drmies, I have been climbing for 30 years, I can surely put 4 sources in 4 different languages for each of those 8C boulders. Just a sec. --Rotpunkt (talk) 21:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi Drmies, here is the list (Nathan has already said that I have put these ascents only because I liked them). I could add other sources too:

This list of boulders are simply all his 8C boulders (anyone can check on 8a.nu [9] and 27crags.com [10]). There also three new 2013 8C to add (Hydrangea, The Bridge of Ashes and The Ice Knife).

--Rotpunkt (talk) 22:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • Holy stronza, that's one hell of a list. But I don't want to be the judge of it, though I am impressed and it seems solid enough to me. Lynn Hill's list has the same type of sourcing, from what I can tell, and it's an FA. Thing is, for her it's all "first free ascent" and "First woman to redpoint a 5.14" and stuff like that, so there's your criterion for notability (I think Nathan would agree with that). I just looked at Witness the Fitness, and that was the third ascent, so there is no automatic reason there to include it. For Paint it Black it seems like an easy case to make--he found the climb, did it, and it was written about. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Regarding Witness the Fitness, it was first climbed by Sharma in 2005, and became one of America's hardest and most iconic boulder problems ([11]). It was only repeated by Fred Nicole in 2006 and then by Woods 7 years later. On itwiki a topic is encyclopedic when there are many secondary reliable sources providing his relevance in a certain field of knowledge. Wikipedia:Notability in this case. Now, we have 8 sources describing the importance: climbing one of America's hardest and most iconic boulder 7 years (during which no one succeeded in climbing it) after the last repetition. --Rotpunkt (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
      • I once again clicked a link at random. I got this UKClimbing page that in its entirety says:

      • American Climber Daniel Woods has made the third ascent of the super-hard boulder problem link-up Terremer (Font 8C) on North Mountain at Hueco Tanks, Mexico.

        Terremer, first climbed by Fred Nicole back in 2005 links Diaphanous Sea (Font 8A+) with the Terre De Sienne (Font 8B+).

        The second ascent of Terremer was made by Paul Robinson in 2008.

        VIDEO: Paul Robinson climbing including the 2nd ascent of Terremer:

      • That's hardly a good source to be writing an encyclopedia article. How many reliable sources use the phrase "super hard"? Plus, Hueco Tanks is in Texas, not Mexico. This "reliable source" was published in 2010 and has been read less than 8000 times. It's this type of crappy source that we should not be using in articles, IMO. On the other hand, if we just want to turn this page into a Woods fandom site, then it'd be an okay source.
      • You're misunderstanding the meaning of WP:NOTABILITY. The first sentence reads "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. " If a particular climb is notable, then we can (and should) write an article about it. See Midnight Lightning (bouldering) or The Nose (El Capitan) for two such routes.
      • I said elsewhere that just because someone does a first ascent of a route do not make that route notable. Making the first ascent of a certain grade is notable. Therefore, the first 5.10 climbed would be notable. The 100th 5.14 climbed would not in-and-of-itself be notable. Sharma climbing Biographie was notable. Hill climbing The Nose was notable.
      • I do have a problem with the sourcing in the Hill list. I do not think that the website that all by one of the ascents is referenced to is notable and should not be used. I do think that a lot of the ascents in her his are themselves notable. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Daniel Woods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Woods&oldid=1199842960"