Talk:Clay pigeon shooting

Merge

This article is very good except that it is only from a UK perspective. It seems the other articles on this were written from a US perspective and no one cross references. I suggest the article clay target be merged in to this one, as it is quite short and the topic covered perfectly well in this article. I suggest US clay shooting enthusiasts contribute to this article, eg the name of their governing body for the sport and differences in terminology? Billlion 07:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea but it doesn't go far enough. A comprehensive set of articles should be created covering each sport or variant of clay target shooting (Trap, Skeet, Sporting Clays, F.I.T.A.S.C./Universal Trench/Helice or ZZ Bird/5-Stand/Compak etc) discussing the differences between the sport/variant as practiced in the US and in Europe. Links should be included to the various national and international governing bodies for each. Also, the article on clay targets needs to be beefed up to discuss the differences between standard and specialty (midi, mini, battue, rabbit, ZZ, etc.) targets and under what circumstances each may be presented to the shooter.--Skeptic3904 18:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like your know quite a bit about this. Perhaps you could make a start on this? I really know nothing about it and was just looking it up. Billlion 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps using a simple navigation template like the one I just created at Template:Clay target shooting would make readers and editors more aware of the different articles that do exist? It would collide with the current ISSF-event templates in three of the articles, but that should be solvable. -- Jao 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference with skeet shooting? It feels like these are synonyms. Merge these two articles? Timelezz (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

Would this article be better off at Clay target shooting? The Google test heavily favours "pigeon", but I'm not sure how much we should care about that in this case. -- Jao 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above it may be a UK/US difference. Also there is already Clay target with a proposal to merger with this one. Should Clay target shooting be a redirect to here ? Billlion 09:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that "clay target" as opposed to "clay pigeon" is the preferred term within the sport, as organisations call themselves "Clay Target Shooting Association of ......" or some such variant of the phrase. I therefore agree with Jao above by saying that merged article should be headed Clay target shooting.Rob Thornton 07:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal has been around for over a year, and it is what the Americans call a "no brainer". Someone should just merge the material from the Clay target here, and where appropriate to the articles on the particular sporting codes, not to mention the move to Clay target shooting. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard it called "clay target shooting" outside of the names of such organizations, however. Local clubs refer to "shooting at clay pigeons". I agree with Billion that it's likely a US/UK difference, however. This whole article does seem to heavily favor the UK; I didn't realize there was much shooting of this sort done there. --128.163.251.95 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this sport is similar to live pigeon shooting and not clay pigeon shooting.......thats why it came about with the bad press on shooting live birds for fun and profit. I would think it could be combined with live pigeon shooting rather than clay shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.58.2 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Actions unsuitable?

Currently, the article states that pump action shotguns are considered unsuitable for this sport, but needs a citation. Pump action shotguns seem to be common enough at the skeet range here in the US, while the semi-automatic, which is listed here, is considered unusual for trap shooting at the local range. I'd recommend that pump actions be listed in order to be through, although some kind of qualifier that some shooters prefer other actions might be in order. --128.163.251.95 (talk) 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and will clean up the Guns section. Incidentally I just spent all afternoon using a pump gun for clays. They work just fine. 68.150.45.231 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did an additional cleanup of the guns section. Part of it sounded more like buying advice than anything else. Pump action shotguns are rare in my part of the world (Northern Europe). I think most people here view them as cheap and "kitsch", and that perception is not helped by the horrible quality of some of the pump action shotguns sold here. 46.39.111.5 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

due to the speed of the sport i would not think a pump is suitable.......something like shooting bunker in terms of the second shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.58.2 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Guns sections

This section is heavily UK centric and brings in laws which may not apply to most readers and aren't really related to the sporting activity. Much as discussing road rules is of little interest in most car articles. I will be making some changes 68.150.45.231 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link to external site

a link was entered to an exrernal website which is non-profit making website for a team associated with the UK clay pigeon scene which has a friendly forum for advice in regards to this topic. This has been removed and we can't sees why it violates any external link guidelines as claimed. similar links has been put on the sporting clays page ( not to our site may i add ) which hasn't been removed.

Our aim of this link is to support and promote this sport and offer advice and guidance to anyone with an interest to the sport

could we re-insert the link without it being removed ?? (Jinxy72 (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No. You attempted to add that link here and to Sporting clays[1] to promote your website, which is against the policy on external links (WP:ELNO #4). XLerate (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other links on the pages to other forums and external sites on those pages so why are mine so different? and why have you left a link to a site selling shooting games dvd ? you've obviously got connections to that site and the other links then ... only difference is mine is a genuine shooting team not doing it for profit but for sport. you on the other hand are protecting other links and reducing competition. What advantage do i gain from promoting my site ? we are a shooting team not an SEO company .... unlike yourself (Jinxy72 (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

And we are the only Ambulance Service Shooting Team in the UK . If that isn't an authority on the subject what is ? We also compete at High Levels in competitions for the CPSA. We do this FOR FREE .... People can join FOR FREE ... people find us via our direct url NOT google page results so promoting our site (as you claimed) . Yet you left links to BUSINESS'S intact. .. If these links are so supportive of wiki and of benefit to the page (as the external links policy states) then why have NONE finished the incomplete pages wiki has open at the moment on shooting related topics? Why haven't I ? because i only joined the day I posted the links . The reason I came to wiki was to promote our sport as i noticed pages where incomplete and external links could be added . Yet the only external links being left FACT as they are there for all to see ... is for business's. (Jinxy72 (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

also the external link policy states "except for a link to an official page of the articles subject " ......WE ARE

then goes to add "An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

The linked content is controlled by the subject (organisation or individual person) of the Wiki article .... WE ARE

The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. ...... WE DO .... our forum cover all aspects of the sport in detail ... AND for FREE .

yet you have decided we are spam .. We are a Non-Profit Non-funded Shooting Team for the biggest ambulance service in the world (social aspects are not paid for by the service) .... yet ... we are spam? sorry but your wrong (Jinxy72 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Jinxy72, I've been asked to help out here. You seem to be struggling with our external links policy; in particular, those types of links that we do not allow. When it says "except for a link to an official page of the articles subject" it means the literal subject of the article. For example, if the article in question is Leonardo DiCaprio, then it is acceptable to link to http://www.leonardodicaprio.com/ (because it is his official website). Because the article Clay pigeon shooting covers the sport of clay pigeon shooting—broadly and globally construed—your website cannot claim to officially represent it. By posting links to your website you do inherently increase its visibility, the Wikipedia community normally considers such actions to an attempt at gaining free advertising or promotion, and is highly sensitive to such issues. These are the reasons why the link you added is considered inappropriate. The existing external links on the article either discuss specific points of the subject without promoting an individual or entity, or at least have a legitimate claim—as a widely read and broadly representative publication in the field—to be officially representative. I hope that has been of help. Pol430 talk to me 19:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pol430 thanks for your explanation and now i understand the linking policy more ... but id have to still disagree with you that the existing links were legitimate .. one went to a site selling a shooting gamedvd , the other went to a forum no different than ours .. and it still doesn't explain why the original editor left the other links in place whilst deleting ours when it was obvious they were to business sites. I must say that now all the links have been removed by either yourself or mrmatiko and yes now the only ones remaining are association sites. if XLerate is going to edit pages then the user needs to do it correctly and not to their own tastes. thanks for your time and help on this matter (Jinxy72 (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clay pigeon shooting. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130710130429/http://an-adventure.co.uk/ to http://an-adventure.co.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Helice

Apparently, this sport is also known as "helice", potentially with some differences. This edit by Bentley Ferguson may be helpful in getting started on coverage of that, though no sources are cited and most of the material is US-centric and non-encyclopedic. -- Beland (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

prevention of cruelty to animals

the article currently says, "In 1921, the British parliament passed a bill without opposition making it illegal to shoot birds from traps," and for some bizarre reason this is sourced to a publication in New Zealand. strictly speaking the English Parliament did not "pass a Bill." in 1921, they amended an existing act, the Protection of Animals Act (1911). this act made coursing or hunting of captive animals illegal unless it is, "liberated in an injured, mutilated, or exhausted condition."[2] then in 1921 they amended this to read: "and a captive animal shall not be deemed to be coursed or hunted within the meaning of this subsection if it is coursed or hunted in an enclosed space from which it has no reasonable chance of escape." [3] and this did not just apply to birds, but to all animals. Cottonshirt τ 02:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]