Jump to content

Talk:Cross-country skiing/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

"Classic" vs "Classical"

I've always heard about 'Classic Technique', not 'Classical', but thats probably due to differences in regional jargon. →Iñgólemo← (talk) 06:16, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Same here, it's normally called classic technique Lorddude 20:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree it should be 'Classic', although I have heard senior FIS officials using the 'Classical' designation so may be things are changing. And by the way it should be Free and not Freestyle (this is the domain of Freestyle skiers who have nothing to do with Cross Country Skiing). SamR Jun 28, 2005

--Classic and Classical are both used interchangably in my experience at all levels of racing. Part of the reason for this confusion is that the origins of the term are distinctivly multi-cultural and multi-lingual, and that the need for such a term only arose 20-30 years ago when the skating technique first came into use so the kinks of its uses and translations are still being worked out. My advice is just don't sweat it, as it is understood what is being talked about in either case. -- SamEB

Combining with Ski_wax

Do you think we should link to the Ski_wax page? Also, does "kick wax" include klister? --Anonymous

Klister is a type of "kick wax" (or grip wax) yes, though it is very different in consistancy than regular kick wax. -- SamEB
Hmm. Where I come from, Norway, we generally classify klister as another category of 'kick stuff' beside wax, i.e. not designating klister as a type of wax. Thus, a typical question before going out to ski in the morning when the temperature is just around freezing point is whether to use wax or klister. Not 100% sure how this is in English---Swix' pages insinuates this difference between "hardwaxes" and "klisters", though. --Wernher 09:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Klister is for warmer humide conditions, other wise you need hard wax over coats for dryer conditons. MJC

Skate-ski picture

The image of the skate-skier does not clearly convey exactly what the motion is, and it was taken at an awkward enough moment that it seems to lack motion and smoothness. I will see if I have one to upload as an alternative.

I think it does a good job of showing the difference between hockey skating and cross country skating for people who aren't familiar with the difference. Particularity using arms in V1 going up a hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.188.92 (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sectioning

OK I just got an edit conflict because some people are changing the sectioning which I was in the middle of improving. I don't think it is necessary to use a section heading with links for each type of binding, so I was trying to remove that but still make it clear it was in sections.

This is what I was working on:

Three different binding systems are used in modern cross-country skiing:

  • NNN (New Nordic Norm) – including the new R4 NIS variant
  • SNS (Salomon Nordic System) Profil
  • SNS  Pilot

Older styled three-pin bindings (or Nordic Norm), with or without cables, are still used by backcountry and Telemarking enthusiasts.

New Nordic Norm

New Nordic Norm (NNN) bindings, made by Rottefella, Rossignol, and Atomic, can range from BC (Backcountry) to the R3 Skate and R3 Classic to the NNN R4 NIS, which require a special plate on the skis to be mounted. Boots compatible with these bindings are made by Alpina Sports, Atomic Skis and Rossignol. The R3 and R4 are generally the choice for World Cup Racers using NNN. These are distinguished from SNS (Salomon and Fischer) bindings in that all bindings in the NNN system have two ridges that stick out from the bottom of the binding, with corresponding slots in NNN boots. NNN is said to have better steering than Salomon because these two grooves better distribute the weight, rather than SNS's (both Profil and Pilot) single larger "bar" sticking up from the binding that fits into a slot in the boot. NNN has also been proven to be lighter than SNS bindings. Despite this, the majority of World Cup level skiers ski on the SNS binding system, but that doesn't make one better than the other. Differences between the NNN and SNS binding systems are miniscule to the average skier, and only comes down to personal preference in the ski boot used.
The R4 NIS binding, made by Rottefella and Rossignol, is the top of the line NNN binding. These bindings are compatible with any NNN boot, but can only be used on Rossignol X-IUM or Madshus Hypersonic Skis—the companies' high-end pro racing skis. Madshus is part of the Rottefella/Madshus/Alpina partnership, and that is the reason for Madshus skis having NIS bindings. The reason for only two different skis being able to use these bindings is that NIS bindings require a special plate only available on these skis. The interesting thing about these bindings is that the rear part can be pivoted back and forth on the plate to match the boots' length, therefore making better power transfer between the boots and the skis. The NIS bindings made their debut to the general public in 2005.

Salomon Nordic System Profil

Salomon Nordic System (SNS Profil) bindings, made by Salomon and Fischer, however, have their advantages too. Boots that are compatible with the SNS Profil system are made by Salomon, Fischer, Adidas, and Hartjes. SNS Profil bindings are used for both Skating and Classic. As opposed to the SNS Pilot's two axes (or attachment points), these boots have only one axis at the front of the sole. Pilots are used by many different racers on the World Cup Circuit. Profil bindings are the standard binding for SNS users, its only competition being the SNS Pilot system. Profil comes in "Equipe" models for racing, "Active" for recreational racing/combination, Auto Touring, and Back Country.

Salomon Nordic System Pilot

SNS Pilot bindings, compatible with Salomon, Fischer, Adidas and Hartjes boots, are only used for Skate Skiing. The idea for these bindings came from Bjørn Dæhlie. Pilots are used mostly by elite skiers at the Collegiate, National, World Cup and Olympian levels, although it is not uncommon to find High School or civilian racers with these bindings and their counterpart boots. Pilots are more expensive than Profils at about 100 dollars for a pair, and can only be used for Skating because there are two axes. In Pilot boots, the two axes, one positioned about 1" behind the other, click into two different slots in the Pilot binding. Profil boots only have one axis and therefore, cannot fit into Pilot bindings. However, Pilot boots can fit into any Profil bindings, due to a small space behind the front of the boot for the other axis. Pilots can't be used for Classic because Classic boots need to be able to flex in all directions so that a good "kick" can be achieved. Pilots do not have the kind of flex required for Classic, but they have proven themselves as good Skate bindings due to reduced ski motion in the air.

Under the circumstances of not wanting so many sublevels this made the most sense to me. As they are/have been changed back to I feel the sections are not really consistent. I am open to suggestions on how it can be smoothed out but to me it makes more coherent sense to have all equipment in the same subsection - boots, poles and bindings included. --CokeBear 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem, please go ahead with your scheme of one "Equipment" section with "Skis and poles" and "Bindings/boots" subsections, where the latter is without subsubsections for the various binding types---I fully agree! :-) --Wernher 01:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We need to change the NNN and SNS a bit, because at the end of January Rottefella won a contract to take over from Salomon in providing bindings for Fischer cross-country skis.

There is a need for the SNS Pilot section to be revised because of the release of Pilot bindings for classic.

Order Of Style And Equipment Sections

Since the equipment section relies on information from the style section it would seem more logical to me to put the style first and the equipment later. Moreover: a sport is primarily defined by it's technique and only supported by it's equipment. --Bacchuss (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and have edited accordinglyAlfrew (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Salomon Pilot Boots

Sorry, I am a wikipedia newbie. I wanted to call attention to something that is very misleading: "However, Pilot boots can fit into any Profil bindings, due to a small space behind the front of the boot for the other axis." This line is VERY INCORRECT. I doubt that whoever wrote it is a nordic skier. I recently purchased Salomon Siam 7 Pilot CF boots which do NOT fit into my Profil bindings (which are about 6 years old). This was confirmed by several other people I know personally. This issue is an incredible source of confusion in the marketplace who are looking to purchase boot/binding systems. There is a lot of incompatibility which needs to be documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.251.213.4 (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem - if it is wrong you can just delete it. If you want to add info on the incompatibility just find a reference to explains it, add the text and cite the ref. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

When the 2006 Team USA/skiing link was added some time ago, on the outset I opposed it, on the grounds that it was too specific and not very "encyclopedic". Thinking about the issue for a little while, however, has made me consider the link more of a Good Thing, as it may perhaps contribute to heightening the US general public's interest for the sport---which is probably a boon as it may lead to increased media coverage etc. A kind of evangelism, though... Comments? --Wernher 12:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Style

It says in the the free/skate section "Skating is faster and a more intense exercise than classic skiing", but i was watching eurosport and the comentators said that skating is faster and NOT as tiring as classic. Thorml 01:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC) In order to skate properly one has to go faster, so it is more intense.

Either that or, when skiing at equal intensity, skate is faster than classic. Because when World Cup racers finish a 50k classic, they're still tired.

Roller Skis

Watch out for classic roller skis because you don't have to push down to get grip so don't use roller skis too much. MJC

Differences in Ski types

I've been unable to find differences between Classic, Skate and Combi skis, especially relating to relative lengths, construction, binding position on the ski, etc... This holds true for Google and WP. Perhaps a nordic-fanatic can fill us in? --Yakym 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

XC Ski Userbox

I noticed that there was no userbox specific to XC skiing, so I made one up. By adding

{{User:Ahunt/XCski}}

to your user page you will display a userbox like this:

This user enjoys Cross-country skiing.




Ahunt 04:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Hazards and big mistakes

I know that I may be hard to ski just by not walking well, but if you exoierience Hypothermia, and encounter animals, there would be a big risk in taking the skis around. I hope that there we would exercise well to move quickly.User:Virtue account 12:40 AM Central Time, Canada —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtue account (talk • contribs) 17:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No Definition of Cross-country skiing

In the whole article, there is no definition of what Cross-country skiing is, except for that Bushwalking on skiis. So what do these people do? It should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.62.96 (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I added something. it's not much, but it's a start.134.84.102.158 (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It is also unreferenced. - Ahunt (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
OKay I have found and added some refs, but this article still needs more references! - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

X/C Binding Qualities

The article currently (19 Oct. 2009) contains some info about X/C binding types, but does not include any info about manufacturer's claims regarding "flex", whatever that is. As a potentially unbiased source of info, Wikipedia could be a valuable resource on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.53.131 (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

new userbox

I created this user box for anyone who loves cross country skiing, more than downhill that is.

Code Result
{{User:GLaDOS/usbx/skiing}}
This user prefers nordic skiing to downhill.
 Usage

GLaDOS (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Good user box! I see you have already added it to the list at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Sports. - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

CANADA

Minor if smart, market.
They are somewhat difficult to acquire in U.S., and this has been true since about 1980, unfortunately.
This article suffers from lack of sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calamitybrook (talk • contribs)

Waxless dominates market

Okay, I found a 1985 published source on Google Books.
It claims that as of 25 years ago, waxless skis accounted for 75 percent of all U.S. XC ski sales.
(No, they don't mention Canada, where skiers are probably a bit smarter on average.)
Now I admit the source is rather old, and doesn't address whether this trend continued.
Don't see a reason to assume that it didn't.
(Have you ever tried to rent waxable XC skis?
The source is here [[1]]

Calamitybrook (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well first off that was 25 years ago when waxless skis were in a honeymoon phase and second it is USA stats. The US just isn't a big XC skiing nation. I think we need a more recent and definitive ref than that, that deals with global sales. You can't draw current and global sales from a USA-centric ref that old. - Ahunt (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
So one complaint is that U.S. consumer market isn't a fair economic measure of North America?
On what measure is this a reasoned viewpoint?
Personally, am thouroughgoing Canadiaophile, such that is rare among stateside types... but this notion you've proposed may be irrational.
Parenthetically, have you noticed that it's impossible to rent waxable cross-country skis?? In my experience this circumstance has been true since the days when it became possible to rent XC skis.
I suppose this point about rentals is OR, but so is, potentially, the notion that sun rises in east.
Yeah so Waxless skis were introduced in 1970, and in 15 years, according to a reliable source provided, they accounted for 75% of the only significant market measure in NA.
You are suggesting this trend reversed itself for reasons that are utterly unstated, unsourced and unclear????
You have no sources. Only your assertion.

Calamitybrook (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying that that the US market isn't a fair measure of the North American market, I am saying that the US is not a fair measure of the global market. We have no refs that say what waxless ski sales are like globally or since 1985, thus the statements made based on that one ref need to be somewhat qualified by those data limitations. You can't draw any extrapolated conclusions from that one data point, limited as it is by time and place. Let me see if I can find some newer and more global data on the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I have done some fairly extensive searching using several search engines and techniques and haven't found any solid data on waxless vs waxable ski sales. Unless anyone else can come up with some further actual numbers, beyond the one USA-1985 number that we have quoted, I think we are safer sticking to some general statements about the popularity of waxless skis globally. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I suppose the wording is presently okay, given available sourcing.
The notion, however, that the U.S. "just isn't a big XC nation" muddies the waters. Svalbardians doubtless do more skiing that Floridians, yet just as obviously, far more skis are sold in Florida than in Svalbard.
See this item for example, wherein a large Finnish sporting goods company identifies U.S. as "world's largest winter sports market:"

[[2]].

But this is obvious.

Calamitybrook (talk) 15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If we want to make claims beyond general statements then we need some actual data. I am still looking for it, but I am not finding any numbers. I think the statements we have there now will have to suffice until some numbers can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The actual data from 1985 (and by implication, 1970) are there now.
Readers, who presumably realize that the US is world's largest consumer market (still), can do their own extrapolation about likely trends.
A point here based purely on inadmissible OR: Even MEC, exclusively Canadian and which perhaps tends to cater to "enthusiasts" rather than purely casual participants (the majority), currently offers 12 models of waxless skis, and ten that are waxable.

"Can't give 'em away" ? Calamitybrook (talk) 20:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

MEC sells nationally and even internationally, so you are right, you can't draw much in the way of conclusions from their retail line offerings with regards to one tiny section of the country. More OR: at lunchtime at the remote ski cabins in Gatineau Park when many dozens of skiers gather for a break, it is easy to walk past the ski racks and see what people are skiing on - waxless skis are pretty rare! Again not a random sample up there, though! - Ahunt (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. My impresson was that Pacific coast snow was among best arguments for waxless skis. Maybe Gatineau is in Quebec? Heck of a market...netz pataz???
I made one purchase from MEC via mail order from New Jersey. International aspect created significant financial barrier. Am gonna make wild and personal guess here, and say that MEC sales are overwhelmingly to Canadians. God Bless Vancouver....
Better to find sources than tag and/or remove stuff that is obviously correct & not controversial just because one can do so. Shouldn't be too hard. Actually, the sources provided probably cover most or all of the material that is now tagged/removed.

Calamitybrook (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I only removed some contradictory and OR-looking information. As for the rest this article remains quite a poorly organized and poorly referenced mess. I would suggest that we find some good refs and clean it up and make it much more concise. - Ahunt (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Go for it, definitely.
Not sure I want to look for sources on how to define a ski-pole, etc..

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have managed to find some more refs and do some minor re-org. I still think this article needs some major reorganization and probably cutting down with more links to main articles on smaller subjects with more detail in them rather than here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That work has now been completed and I think the article is more manageable now. There is still work to be done on it, but I think it is getting there. - Ahunt (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

History; First competition event

The first XC skiing competition event was held in Tromsø, Norway in 1843 (apparently in april). Organised by Otto krogh. Could be incorporated.

http://www.pergjendem.com/?p=67

-callidus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.124.204.237 (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Skate ski nit-picking?

I find a couple of things not quite right about the descriptions of skating.

"supported by the inner edge of the ski on the snow," This sounds like bad technique. You glide on a flat ski and roll onto the edge when you push off. Gliding on the edge is a good way to waste energy (when was the last time you waxed your sidewalls?).

"Skate skis tend to be ... stiffer than those used for the classic technique" Skate skis are stiffer in torsion than classic; classic ski tips twist to steer the ski and follow the track. Skate skis are stiffer in torsion so they tend to go in a straight line and continue in the direction they are pointed. In flexure, the ski flattens under the weight of the skier regardless of whether you are talking about classic or skate. If you compare skate and classic with the same camber, the overall stiffness is the same - the same deflection to weight ratio. If you look at stiffness per unit length, the shorter skate ski is softer, not stiffer. Only if there are significant differences in camber can the stiffness be higher in a skate ski. Do all skate skis have lower camber than classic?

Is this just being too fussy about the description or terminology? 99.245.230.105 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy is important. That whole section is lacking references and so can be rewritten without conflicting, but adding some refs would be a very good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Scope of this article

Hi all. I've been trying to raise the quality of skiing articles which suffer from, among other things, poor structure, and poor definition of types. This leads to a lot of overlap. I've been working on consolidating content according to a structure (please check this link!!). It was suggested there that the IOC / FIS structures be used to organise the various ski disciplines. Otherwise how to you separate backcountry from ski touring from cross-country? What is ski mountaineering? The article was vague. I edited it to focus more on the "sanctioned" notion of the sport, and I think the article is better for it. I've been trying to apply the same notion to this article. Seeing my work, User:HopsonRoad asked me on my talk page whether it's the right way to go to "recast cross-country skiing as primarily a racing sport, characterizing ski touring as the recreational off-shoot. Most mass sports are thought of as the general practice, which then have a competitive subset; running, bicycling, skating are some examples. In my lexicon, manyfold more people cross-country ski recreationally than race." Hopson's right that in reality way more people are sliding around the local golf course of a February afternoon than are competing an FIS race. The problem is that these "leisure activities" become very difficult to define. Looking for ideas here folks .... --Cornellier (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I certainly felt the same way as HopsonRoad when I saw your changes. Many subjects are written about on Wikipedia without formal definition by something like a global sporting body. I'd like to see your edits reverted and THEN we start a conversation here. Some overlap doesn't matter. And a global view is important too, not just how a recreational activity is seen and undertaken in one area. HiLo48 (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi HiLo thanks for your input. I get you guys that xc skiing should not be defined by FIS 1st etc. My point of view is that the need to be defined by something or else how do you write about them? Suggestions? I have no problem reverting and working on the article via discussion people are willing. --Cornellier (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, Cornellier. I agree that some overlap is OK and can not be avoided as the topics certainly overlap in reality. For instance skiing biathlon is basically cross-country skiing, so those articles must necessarily overlap. Some kind of definition is needed simply to clarify the scope of an article, particularly within the topic of skiing where there are so many styles. Cross-country skiing is really hard to define outside the context of formal championships. In Norwegian "langrenn" (cross-country skiing) is a competitive sport also practiced as exercise, while "skiing" is all kinds of self-propelled motion across snow using skis (except perhaps alpine skiing). So for instance if I "go skiing" this can be in groomed tracks with light equipment (cross-country style), if snow conditions allow I can leave the tracks (back-country style), I can also use heavier equipment but move like a cross-country skier (in tracks or in loose snow). In my basement I have 7-8 pairs of skis, from the very light carbon skis useful for competitions to the heaviest telemark skis with steel edges, between these extremes there is only a gradual change of style, equipment and technique overlap notably. So various types of recreational skiing is hard to define. I think we should use FIS definitions as a point of departure for specific articles such as this one, while for recreational skiing broader articles is perhaps better to avoid some definition issues. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
To add. Kunnskapsforlagets idrettsleksikon (Norwegian Encyclopedia of Sports) (eds Rolf Bryhn og Knut Are Tvedt, published by Kunnskapsforlaget, Oslo, 1990) defines (my translation) XC skiing ("langrenn") as "competitive type of skiing, where the goal is to complete a specific distance in groomed tracks in the shortest possible time". "Turlangrenn" (long distance XC skiing or ski marathon) such as Birkebeinerrennet is included in the definition. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Cornellier, for your interest in this article. I appreciate your wish to improve it, since it is of mediocre quality, in my opinion. I could suggest thinking in terms of general to specific.
E.g. "Cross-country skiing is a means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain. It is widely practiced as a sport, however some use it as a means of transportation. Variants of cross-country skiing are adapted to a range of terrain which spans unimproved mountainous terrain to groomed courses that are designed for the sport; these variants include..... Specialized equipment is used, depending on the type of terrain. Competitive variations of the sport include...."
One can then have sections that pertain to terrain/venues to types of skiing (off-piste, groomed terrain) and the equipment basics and variants that are used in each. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the definition suggested by HopsonRoad "means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain" is covers virtually all kinds of skiing, so too broad for XC. In Norway we actually use the general term "ski hiking/running" (skiing is not a verb in Norwegian) for self-propelled movement (as opposed to alpine skiing and ski jumping that primarily use gravitation). The Norwegian word "langrenn" actually means "long distance speed/run/race/competition" (as opposed to jumping or downhill/slalom). While this is of course an English language encyclopedia, these sports are rooted in Scandinavia. In German the word "Langlauf" also refers to long distance race/run. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand Erik's concern about the breadth of my proposed definition and was looking for the right qualifier, when I floated it. However, XC skiing really is the most general type of skiing. All other forms are variants. I'm glad that he clarified the meaning of "renn," as well, since that in my mind (along with Lauf), connoted running or racing. The Birkebeiner events celebrate travel of refugees on snow, not a sport. So, let's stick to the Engiish approach to defining skiing, which doesn't necessarily involve running or racing. I could offer that, "Cross-country skiing is the original and most basic means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain." Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 19:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that XC skiing is the most basic or general type of skiing, and we should of course stay in the English language context. Problem is that "traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain" is basically the same as skiing. Such a broad definition is not be wrong, but makes it very difficult to write the article. XC skiing as a competitive sport is on the other hand very specific, with a clear set of rules, equipment, history etc - the article will then have to jump from the very broad concept of skiing/ski hiking to the very specific concept of competitive skiing as defined by FIS or other recognized bodies. I think the article should have the competitive sport as the point of departure, then also include a broader perspective by describing XC skiing as exercise/recreation (widely practiced in Norway) and by describing XC skiing as a derivative of "original ski hiking". --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your perspective, Erik. I suggest that you take a peek at how I've handled the matter in the sandbox for this article. It builds out from the origins of the activity from transportation to recreation to competition. Bear in mind that, even in Norway where I've had the privilege to ski tour, cross-country skiing is primarily a recreational pursuit. Therefore, I believe that the competition emphasis is inappropriate. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I have no objection to having a separate article, Cross-country ski competition, which could have the attributes of the current state of the article and conform to Erik's preferred approach. See, for example, Cycling and Bicycle racing. User:HopsonRoad 14:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I see where your (Hopson's) proposal is heading. I think it is doable if we break it up in two separate articles like Cycling and Bicycle racing. In that case the Norwegian WP article on langrenn should be linked to the separate article on competitive XC skiing, not to the general article on XC skiing.
Still I don't think it is ideal, particularly because there are too many articles on recreational skiing with no clear definitions/delimitations. My approach would be many specific articles for the various types of competitive skiing (where clear definitions exist) and a single or small number of articles on skiing in general. For instance various concepts such as Ski touring, backcountry skiing and ski mountaineering are difficult to keep apart outside the institutional frame of championships.
If cross-country skiing is defined as "the original and most basic means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain" (sandbox) XC skiing is in fact defined just like Skiing and the article should also include various downhill aspects of skiing. Historically competitive skiing often mixed jumping, downhill and longruns to reflect real-life challenges. For instance military races in the 18th century included: Running downhill while shooting rifle, steep downhill through forest, downhill in big/difficult hills without ski poles, and 3 km long race (on flat ground). The 1866 Oslo race combined longrace, slalom (hill race) and jumping.
You are right that in Norway cross-country is a widespread recreational/exercise activity, but then it is understood in a more general terms as "ski hiking" (as I explained above). I think the issue here is a terminological confusion. I think it is misleading to relate "general" XC skiing (ski hiking) specifically to competitive XC skiing, this is not historically correct as all competitive skiing originate from traditional "ski hiking" in rugged terrain. Around 1900 skiing competitions in Norway became more specialized: Hill race (slalom/downhill) was abolished while jumping and longrace (XC) were retained as key disciplines, participants were expected to master both. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The sandbox article looks pretty good! However, I do have some concerns:
* I agree with Erik that "there are too many articles on recreational skiing with no clear definitions/delimitations".
* The sandbox article nicely gives historical context, and general information, but should that not be in skiing? And if so, should it be in both? Should it also be in nordic skiing? Who has time to maintain it in three places, not to mention history of skiing etc.?
* Viewed in the historical context, the definition of skiing is the same as the definition in the sandbox "Cross-country skiing is the original and most basic means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain.". Fixed-heel boots have only existed for about 80 years. The branching of skiing into various disciplines is recent. If the term cross-country skiing is recent, why apply it to skiing in general? According to Google's Ngram Viewer, the term "cross country skiing" was rare before the 1970s and still lags far behind skiing in terms of popularity.
* If this article is not more narrowly defined, it will bloat over time. E.g. the current section on wax is too long. Grip wax and waxless skis aren't even relevant to skating. We could maintain the content in two places to save people clicking over to ski wax, but resources (editors' time) is scarce and if you spread it thinly, quality will suffer. Q = T/C where Q is quality, T is time, and C is the amount of content. Since T is constant, Q varies inversely with C. You heard it first here folks.
* Where does nordic skiing fit into all this? Maybe the "generalness" of the content should descend as follows: skiing > nordic skiing > cross country skiing --Cornellier (talk) 22:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, all for your discussion points. My thought is that the article on "Cross-country skiing" would be relatively quiescent and general, whereas the "Cross-country ski competition" article would be more dynamic and change with new developments. So, here are some responses to observations from Erik and Cornellier:

Erik

  • Definitions—I'm not sure that I understand the need for a clear "definition" of the sport. The lead section should be a clear descriptive introduction to the topic, but not all topics are definable, e.g. biographies or historical events. Why should it be required for skiing?
  • Branching of disciplines—The early skiing was not called "cross country," because what we think of that way was originally the only type of skiing. It was just a means of traveling on snow. As forms of skiing differentiated themselves one from the other, then specialized terms for each branch emerged. The various contexts for skiing in Norway don't correspond exactly to English terms. The terms in English should feed from the source articles. At the same time, those source articles should be of better quality than they are now.

Cornellier

  • Definitions—I agree that the totality of skiing articles need improvement and coordination. It doesn't appear that there is much activity applied to this cause.
  • Branching of disciplines—I concur that the branching of non-fixed-heel skiing into specialized disciplines required a distinction in terminology, e.g. "cross country," "alpine," "jumping," etc.
  • Coordination of scope—As I suggested, the basic article should be kept simple, including a basic discussion of equipment and waxes. The intricacies of waxing really belong mostly in the "Cross-country ski competition" article. This should minimize cross-article coordination.
  • Taxonomy—I like the idea of a taxonomy, as suggested by Cornellier.

So, in summary, I recommend developing the current state of the article under the title of "Cross-country ski competition" and reserving the current title for describing the basics and the branches of the sport. I further feel that it's appropriate to follow the trunk and branches to coordinate each. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 23:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: Thanks for your nice summary. In general, WP articles don't need definitions (WP is not a dictionary), but I do think they need delimitations, that is, the introduction should clearly describe the scope of the article. On the other hand, a definition helps as it also implies a delimitation. I think terminology is the tricky issue here: Within EN WP we should remain loyal to widespread English terminology (as reflected in sources), although the activities described emerged in Scandinavia and it is in Scandinavia that the full range of activities are widely practiced.

@Cornellier: Within skiing as a competitive sport, the suggested taxonomic approach (skiing > nordic skiing > cross country skiing) is a good idea (such taxonomy can describe current division, whereas historically of course that division was not clear). For skiing as a recreational activity, a strict taxonomy may be more difficult to use as there are often no clear distinctions (a single "ski trip" may involve XC style, Telemark, mountaineering style and Alpine turns) - I don't have a clear solution to this problem, but the article on competitive XC skiing should mention that there recreational/exercise activities very similar to the formal sport. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. I feel that the approach being experimented with in Talk:Cross-country skiing/sandbox delimits the scope of the article, as you advocate. I encourage you to pitch in! We could add an etymology section that differentiates the English and Nordic ways of describing the sport. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox for starting from an earlier version

I suggest that we experiment with starting with an earlier version and bringing forward elements from the current version that fit. So, try out your propose revisions in this sandbox and when we like them, we can bring them across. User:HopsonRoad 23:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's not start a new article just yet; there're already far too many. I'll take a shot at editing in this sandbox. It may be possible to arrive at a more formal structure while not excluding more casual skiing from the article.
That works for me, too. User:HopsonRoad 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
You've done a lot of work on this, good job User:HopsonRoad. It's certainly better than it was three weeks ago. I propose we leave it another 24 hours to let me do some edits. I've been busy with work. There are still a few things that bug me.
  • Too many external links / see also / bibliography
  • non-standard puncuation like em dashes
  • I've never heard the term "wedge turn" can't we just say snowplough?
  • don't think it's necessary to sort equipment into a sub-group accessory equipment. You can't really x-country ski without boots and poles.
  • cable and 3-pin bindings are obsolete, not worth mentioning, leaving it to the binding topic
I'll be back soon ! --Cornellier (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That, too, works for me, Cornellier. I'm OK with your suggestion. One point about "wedge" turns: they are the officially accepted usage of the Professional Ski Instructors of America in its Cross Country Certification Standards 2014. Also cable and 3-pin bindings are still sold, as are three-pin bindings. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 11:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, Cronellier. I have tweaked a few of them. The only ones that don't work for me are the introductory bullets under "Skis." They are non-parallel and perhaps could be stated better, especially the one covering "traction." Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Images

I have commented out redundant images and relocated germane items to illustrate the concepts described in the various sections. Unfortunately, in doing so, I commented out the only image of a female skier. The picture was more scenery than skiing. I'll try to capture images of female competitive skiers this winter. Additionally, I'll try to add images of equipment. User:HopsonRoad 16:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Equipment and waxes

Previous renditions of descriptions of equipment and waxes were too detailed for an encyclopedic entry, yet insufficiently illustrative as a tutorial. Hence, I have attempted to streamline them. User:HopsonRoad 16:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cross-country skiing is the original form of skiing

"Cross-country skiing is the forerunner of alpine skiing, ski jumping and telemark skiing." This phrase bothers me because a) the term "cross-country skiing" is a new one. I'm guessing that it's a term that arose in the '70s to describe this new leisure activity which at the time was popularly practised in carefully-groomed tracks. b) I'm not sure it's safe to assume that XC as we know it is that old. For example before the 1860s bindings were more primitive and steering was done by dragging the single large pole they used then.

More correct to say something like "Cross-country skiing closely resembles the original form of skiing from which other modern types of skiing evolved, for example alpine skiing", etc.

An interesting question. I would say that the term arose, because originally there was only one form of skiing, which we now call cross-country to differentiate it from the other derivatives. However, if there had been no other derivatives, there would have been no reason to call it "cross-country," today. We'd just say, "skiing." I could see saying, "Modern cross-country skiing most closely resembles the original form of skiing from which all skiing disciplines evolved, including alpine skiing, ski jumping and telemark skiing." User:HopsonRoad 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Admittedly anecdotal, but I'd say that in the USA alpine skiing boomed in the '60s and '70s. It was called skiing. When XC appeared on the scene in the mid '70s it had to be called something so it was called "cross-country skiing". On the other hand, I lived in Norway for many years and when you said you were going skiing, it was not assumed you'd be using ski lifts. Take a look at the Norwegian Ski Association's http://www.skiforbundet.no/ website. Hopefully this article is keeping a global perspective. --Cornellier (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
To add to the confusion, "skiing" is assumed to be on snow, north of the Mason-Dixon Line. To the south, thereof, it's assumed to be on water! The call our sport "snow-skiing," just as we call theirs "water-skiing." User:HopsonRoad 02:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Imagine my surprise the first time I was served "tea" in Houston. --Cornellier (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As you suggested, above, Cornellier, I'm moving the Sandbox across to the article. At the same time, I'll put the current state of the article into the sandbox, in case there's anything that you want to bring across. User:HopsonRoad 02:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK looks good. Thanks. --Cornellier (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The claim "Cross-country skiing is the forerunner of alpine skiing, ski jumping and telemark skiing" is historically correct, but again the issue is terminology. While in English the term "XC skiing" is new, the activity described by the term is certainly older than the more specific competitive sports such as alpine and jumping. The confusion arises because alpine skiing was certainly practiced as an activity also in prehistoric times, but was given its current name (and specialized equipment) when the activity was further developed in the Alps after year 1900. This remains the key problem in this article: It is not clear what the terms refer to - a competitive sport (clearly defined within an institutional framework) or some vaguely defined activity? Alpine skiing as competitive sport was practiced in Norway at least as early as 1760, but then with other names such as "racing down big, difficult hills without falling and without the support of poles" (modern downhill) or "racing down steep, forested hills with forest". So it is fair to say that "ski hiking" (or "XC skiing" as it is called in North America) is the mother of all sorts of skiing. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Scope and perspective

There are many serious problems with the current state of the article, some I have already mentioned above, but problems remain and I will repeat main points here. It is not clear if the article is about competitive XC skiing or XC skiing unrestrained by the rules and equipment of competitive skiing. The introduction suggest a very wide scope by stating that "Cross-country skiing is the original and most basic means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain" (which is in fact a definition of skiing). The introduction switches to a very narrow scope by describing XC skiing according to the rules and techniques of competitive skiing, for instance the terms "classic" and "skating" are "basic" only within the frame of competitive skiing. In recreational skiing "skating" is just one of several "kicks", there is no problem alternating between friction kicks and skating kicks. Moreover, the sharp distinction between Nordic and Alpine exist within competitive sports.

The article also links to "langrenn" in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish (Langlauf in German WP), these article are about competitive XC skiing, so these links are clearly wrong. The Norwegian article that corresponds to the purpose of present article is "Skigåing" (i.e., "Ski hiking"). Consistency across languages requires that there is a separate article on competitive XC. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, Erik. The German article is similarly broad and begins "Skilanglauf ist eine nordische Wintersportart, bei der man auf Ski nicht nur hangabwärts gleitet, sondern sich durch Rückstoß auch horizontal oder bergauf auf dem Schnee bewegt. Meist werden speziell präparierte Loipen benutzt;" and includes a section on Querfeldein („backcountry“).The Norsk bokmål links to Skigåing, or recreational cross-country skiing, which article is a stub and would not be a suitable link across Wikimedia. The Swedish article doesn't link to recreational skiing, as far as I can see, but does illustrate ski touring and equipment. The Polish (Good Article) treatment depicts both recreational and competition skiing. It's incumbent on those working on articles to treat them in the context of their readerships. An article in one language can't rule the contents of another language. In short, this article represents the sport as practiced by most in the English-speaking world, which is mostly at the recreational level. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

As to the terms "classic" and "skate-skiing," those span recreational and competitive versions of the sport in the English-speaking world. The term "Free-style" is limited to competition and is not an element of this article; the term implies that one could do either classical or skate-skiing in a race. User:HopsonRoad 21:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you miss the points that I have tried to communicate several times. And I am not sure if the current state of the article is based on consensus. Changes that in my view should be done as soon as possible:
  • A separate article on competitive XC skiing. Now the article treats recreational skiing within the context of competitive skiing (or at least is unclear at this point), for instance there is no governing body for recreational skiing. The article will be much less confusing if the specifics of the competitive sport is shifted to a special article.
  • The topic and scope of the article should be specified for the reader. The current article alternates between the very broad ("the original and most basic means of traveling on skis over snow-covered terrain") and the very narrow (the infobox for instance focuses on the competitive sport and gives the impression that the article describes the sport as defined by FIS).
Minor points:
  • I can agree that the notions of classic and skating spans recreational and competitive, but the description of these is based on developments within competitive sports. My point is that in recreational skiing these do not exist as "complete" (mutually exclusive) styles, but rather as an array of kicks used opportunistically. For instance I often use the skating kicks when I am out skiing, but I am not strong enough to do the "gliding fishbone" on steep hills. Skating was certainly not invented by Siitonen, Koch or Aunli, but may have been introduced in competitive skiing by these athletes.
  • Article should have a global perspective (per WP policy I assume). But then of course terminology issue arises as "cross-country skiing" is primarily a North American term. So should the article cover XC skiing the way the word is understood in an Anglo-American context or should the article cover the activity as practised irrespective of the connotations in the Anglophone world. Modern skiing was primarily developed and fixated as a competitive sport in Norway ("hill races" were abolished and later picked up in the Alp region, hence the name "alpine" skiing). Skiing was brought to North America by Norwegian immigrants in Minnesota and Wisconsin, but also in the gold rush in Alaska and Canada. Norwegian students at brought their skis when attending engineering universities in the Alp region. Fridtjof Nansens famous trip across Greenland made skiing known to the wider public.--Erik den yngre (talk) 12:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Erik, I didn't miss the points that you conveyed. Its just that User:Cornellier and I didn't agree with them, in the end. It's hard to define a consensus, when two native speakers of English (one U.S., the other Canadian) are happy with the article and one non-native speaker of English is not; others appear not to be engaged. I floated the idea of splitting the article, but Cornellier was not attracted to it. You shouldn't be surprised that the "Anglo-American" perspective is in this article, since there is relatively little pursuit of the sport in other parts of the English-speaking world. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose split

I propose that the article should be split in two: One covering competitive XC skiing as defined by FIS and other international bodies; one covering XC skiing in general (recreational activity). Now the article infobox suggest that it is about competitive skiing, while the scope is actually much broader. A split will make article more clear to the reader and easier to edit. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I proposed the same thing in the "Sandbox for starting from an earlier version" section, but User:Cornellier suggested not doing so in the second entry (unsigned). When I posted the existence of the article in Facebook, it still had Cornellier's competition-oriented version in the FB summary box. Commenters complained that it shouldn't be solely about competition. I personally have no objection to starting a competitive X-C page, but it shouldn't alter the scope of the current page. There could be a "Main Article" link in the Competition section. I would not plan on contributing to that article. User:HopsonRoad 14:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree (I think) with Erik den yngre that the article as it stands
  • has an American perspective. "XC-skiing has only existed in the US since the '70s when the name was coined differentiate it from the then-burgeoning alpine skiing.
  • it contains to much general information about skiing, which is confusing. The history section only talk about XC skiing since the time when Nordic and Alpine started to split which was (I think) around the 1920s.
I stand by what I said a week ago, namely that XC skiing is too vague a term as used in the current article. This article should focus on the competitive definition, as works very well for ski mountaineering. There's a lot of good content in this article but there are so many other places where it could be. We don't need versions of the history of skiing in every article about skiing. Ditto skis, ski boots, ski bindings etc. With regard to a discussion about the splitting of content, I think this needs to be looked at in the wider context of Wikipedia. One approach in ascending order of generality:
Another approach
Thanks. I think Cornellier's approach is on the right track. I agree that topics ski touring and cross-country skiing (as a leisure activity) can be merged into a single article, name is less important as long as the topic is clearly delimited in the introduction (and appropriate redirects in place). --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I just altered the introduction slightly to indicate current scope of article. Please take a look. With small changes, I think something like that can be used even if article is split. --Erik den yngre (talk) 18:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. The https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ski_de_fond French introductory paragraph is worth a look too. --Cornellier (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm fine with the streamlining of the lead section, which more closely resembles the German. I'm not fine with removing material which makes this article an overview. I am fine with a separate article that develops the competitive sport, as long as it doesn't diminish the level of detail present here. Cornellier's hierarchy of Cross-country skiing and Cross-country skiing (Sport) clearly suggests that the second should be subordinate to the first in hierarchy, but develop the topic of competition more deeply. User:HopsonRoad 21:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
User:HopsonRoad I'd be grateful if you could comment on some of the points raised above which I will repeat here:
  • The article seems to have an Anglo-American, and not global, perspective. The term "XC-skiing" has only existed in the US since the '70s when it was coined to differentiate it from the then-burgeoning alpine skiing.
  • The article contains too much general information about skiing, which is confusing. The history section should only talk about XC skiing since the time when Nordic and Alpine started to split which was (I think) around the 1920s. XC skiing is a sub-genre Nordic Skiing which is in turn a sub-genre of skiing yet the article (and the relative lack of info in the latter articles) implies that XC skiing is the primary form. --Cornellier (talk) 03:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(Back to edge) If XC skiing is the primary is a matter of definition. Historically there was of course only one type of skiing, that was skiing as transport (although of course mastering downhill was part of it, skiing as transport was most similar to ski touring/recreational XC). It was skiing competition that fixated XC skiing as something special, although it was only around 1900 that equipment (bindings primarily) was specialized. Before (roughly) 1900 skiers used the same skis for all disciplines. Prior to about 1900 or 1920 the history of XC skiing is the same as the history of skiing, so most can be covered in the general skiing article. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment, Cornellier. The schism seems to me to be hinge on whether the article is about the activity, which became known as cross-country skiing in North America (and presumably the English-speaking world) as it split with Alpine skiing, or the term "cross-country skiing" as it arose. You and Erik are focused on the term and its definition. I favor discussing the activity, which has general antecedents and grew into the term. Here's the hierarchy that I would propose:
Skiing
Nordic skiing => Cross-country skiing, Ski jumping, Nordic combined, Telemark skiing
Cross-country skiing (current overview article]
Cross-country skiing (sport) = Cross-country ski racing = Cross-country ski competition
With the cross-country skiing as activity model the current article should remain the overview. I would recommend using the current Talk:Cross-country skiing/sandbox to develop the "Cross-country skiing (sport)" article until it exceeds the current article in the substance contained in the Competition section. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 11:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I don't think the article should be about the term XC skiing, instead it should be about the activity - we agree at that point. The problem is however terminological because perception of what XC skiing is (scope of topic), is intertwined with understanding of the word XC skiing. My main point is that XC skiing (leisure activity) is a blurred topic, unlike XC skiing (competitive sport), so describing recreational XC skiing within the frame of the competitive sport makes the article confusing and unclear. So I think the first point to agree about is the scope of the article: What should be included under the umbrella XC skiing (leisure)? (A) Should XC skiing be regarded identical to the competitive sport (equipment, technique) except that there is no race, or (B) should the article cover XC skiing in a very wide sense (what Norwegians call "ski hiking"). In case (A) there is no need for a separate article, in case (B) XC skiing (general, leisure/transport) should be merged with ski touring but split from competitive XC. In case (B), XC skiing can be distinguished from alpine skiing by the loose heel and the need for self-propulsion. Hope this helps to clarify. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Additional point: Perhaps we should add a separate section about the history of the term XC skiing in case readers are confused. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time following Erik's logic, It still seems to be based on the structure of the Norwegian language, which distinguishes ski racing and ski hiking as distinctly different sports. My impression, Erik, is that you advocate placing recreational skiing as an offshoot of competitive skiing and therefore feel that it should be a subordinate and separate article. This seems to be the case in the Bokmol article, but not in other languages (German, Swedish, Polish, etc.). My strong advocacy is for a general article, much like what exists now, which remains essentially stable and has the basics of the recreational and competitive version of the sport. The competition article would be more dynamic and follow trends and events in the world of competition..User:HopsonRoad 00:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Consensus?

It appears that we have arrived at a consensus to keep the current scope of this article and expect at some point to introduce an article, "Cross-country skiing (sport)" = "Cross-country ski racing"' = "Cross-country ski competition," which is being developed in Talk:Cross-country skiing/sandbox. Once developed, this would be cited as Main Article under the Competition section of this article. Agreed? User:HopsonRoad 21:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, once a separate article is created, some details specific to XC competition should be removed from the current article. So I guess we will have some new discussions about details, but let us push that into the future. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Let's hold back. My original concern with the article was scope creep. Hiving off content to another article is, in my opinion, a "band-aid" solution. The article in its revised format is already seeing scope creep in the History section (good content, but there are already articles for skiing and the history of skiing. --Cornellier (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
That is partly my fault. I am trying to develop the terminology section in particular, as current terminology (particularly across countries and languages) is a source of confusion. Some of the details can be shifted to history of skiing, still some overlap is OK and I think it is very informative for the reader to understand how XC skiing branched off from general skiing some 100-150 years ago. For instance, Nansen's famous Greenland report in its translated version did not even use the word "skiing", instead used the Norwegian-Danish word "skilöbning", this gives a clear picture of the lack of a widely understood terminology at the time. It would be great to have more details about how, when and why the English term "cross-country" emerged. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

So, Cornellier, assuming some light pruning of the current article is needed along the way (as opposed to major scope change), is it OK to remove the "split into multiple articles" banner? As it stands, we wouldn't be "splitting" the article, so much as creating a new one with more specialized content when it achieved critical mass. User:HopsonRoad 12:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would actually recommend a split. I would prefer to treat competitive XC and general XC as two separate but closely related topics. Perhaps competitive XC can be regarded as a sub-topic of XC skiing, but in any case I think it is much easier to treat them separately with appropriate reference to each other. I think there should be a separate article on competitive XC as defined by FIS, such an article can be very detailed about rules, contests, venues etc. --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I concur with Erik's vision. I don't see that as a "split" where large chunks of content migrate to another article. User:HopsonRoad 13:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps "split" is not the right word, but I would prefer a parallel article, not a subordinate, as it is not clear (from sources or from our discussion) if there is definite hierarchy of topics. The easy way out is to create parallel articles that overlap slightly so that relations between the topics are maintained. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that we're on the same page, Erik. I'm hoping to hear from Cornellier, so that we can remove the tag and simply stand up a parallel article, when it's ready. User:HopsonRoad 17:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll take off the "split" banner and I'll try to work on the skiing sport article. I'm not 100 per cent convinced two articles is better than one here, but we see how the sport article shapes up. --Cornellier (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've created Cross-country skiing (sport) --Cornellier (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Cornellier. The only problem that I see is that the article title doesn't lend itself well to description in the lead section. Perhaps the title should be "Cross-country ski competition" with a redirect from Cross-country skiing (sport).User:HopsonRoad 17:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please continue this conversation at Talk:Cross-country_skiing_(sport). I'll take a look at the intro. I used (sport) in the title because there seems to be a precedent, e.g. swimming (sport). --Cornellier (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Let us "sport" in the title according to pattern, although personally I believe "competition" is the more precise term (scope is clear from intro). --Erik den yngre (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Terminology

I added a terminology section. Mostly old history focused on Norway/Alps, so perhaps some details can later be moved to the general skiing article - let us see how it develops. Please add material on the origins and current uses of related English words. --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Erik. I feel that adds interesting and pertinent material to the general article. User:HopsonRoad 00:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I realized that some of the discussions we had above was related to terminology. So I assume that readers of the article could also need a background on terminology. What is needed now is more on what happened to terminology when Alpine skiing developed somewhat independently, and how the terminology developed in the English speaking world. Perhaps the terminology section should be split in two: One section about history and one section on current terminology (a comparison across languages could be useful and clarify issues further). --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Erik. I concur with your insight! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the cleanup, but some words are direct quotes from the original, so I reversed those changes. The 18th century military contests included "long races", which did not imply "long-distance" (races were typically 3 km and should be completed in less than 15 min). I suppose the word "long" refers to the endurance aspect of the race, rather than strength or skill aspect of a short downhill/slalom.--Erik den yngre (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust that you mean quotes from a cited author's translation, which might not have used current idioms. If the quotes are from someone else's translation, they should remain. If they are translations from the source language by a WP editor, then they should be subject to editing to refine the meaning, consistent with the source material. User:HopsonRoad 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from Nansen's report are taken from the translated version (published by Longmans & Co, London). Nansen was an extraordinary character. His book from the Greenland "ski tour" was very influential in the spread of skiing as a popular activity, particularly in the German speaking part of Europe. The words "top speed" is taken from Olav Bø's Skiing throughout history, the original read something like "full fart" (full speed). Today it is of course hard to know what was in fact "full speed" for a ski-soldier in 1767. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Good article?

How about nominating this article as a good article? This one or Cross-country skiing (sport), or skiing, or history of skiing? From there they could become a featured article on the front page or WP. I've been reading up a bit on the "paperwork" required and could handle that side. Would anyone be interested in helping me with some tweaks to make it meet the criteria? --Cornellier (talk) 14:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur, Cornellier. I was thinking the same for this and its companion article, Cross-country skiing (sport). What tweaks do you feel are necessary? User:HopsonRoad 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Off the top of my head
  • it might be worth double-checking that all the images are kosher, i.e. have the proper copyright notices. they seem ok
  • terminology section, great info but I wonder if there should be separate etymology section outside of history and/or some of the info should be moved to history? Wonder if it's too much detail? (Personally I love etymology!)
  • Gallery: not sure if that's frowned upon. Nice pics, but I wonder if it says "these are some nice pictures we didn't want to leave out but we didn't know where to put them in the article".
  • "See also" kind of same as for gallery. "some interesting links, we weren't sure where to put them" It seems like they should be in the article body, or in a nav template ... But maybe that's just me.
  • refs: I see there's a couple of hidden cats "Pages using web citations with no URL" and "Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL", but maybe they're good enough for WP:RS. fixed --Cornellier (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
--Cornellier (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cornellier, having brought an article to GA status (Ralph Flanders) and having assessed one, (Dick Cheney), I don't think that those should be problems. If they are problems, either the reviewer or we can fix them. User:HopsonRoad 01:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. About Cornellier's points:
  • Terminology. This is my baby and I introduced it because I realized that the discussions we had often boiled down to terminology. The section is far from perfect, and I would ideally like it to be more comparative and more brief on etymology - some details can be shifted to the main article on skiing. Etymology is difficult to keep apart from history, notably how alpine skiing branched off.
  • Gallery. Agree, should be good illustrations about specific points in the article, not merely nice.
  • "See also" - section. Can be abolished, links should be in text or in navbar.
Regards --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree to eliminating a gallery at the end of the article of "nice" photographs. Each is worth a thousand words and further conveys the subject, without lengthy discussion. The Gallery at the end is not in the way of access to the topic. Clearly the images in the text should illustrate the topic and not just provide flavor. As to etymology, I contacted the editor of Cross Country Skier magazine and John H. Caldwell, the "father" of cross-country skiing in the US, for insight on how and when the term "cross-country" arose for skiing. I received some interesting feedback, but it would qualify only as WP:OR. User:HopsonRoad 14:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, let us put the gallery on hold, but I still think the purpose of the gallery is an issue. I agree that a picture says more than thousand words. To give the gallery a clearer purpose, the text for each picture should then be specific and text should relate image to points in the text, it should be made clear what each photo in fact illustrates. In addition, images seems to focus on competitive XC skiing, perhaps search for images that illustrates the variety.
It would be very nice to have a printed source regarding the origin of the term XC skiing in the Anglo-American world. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Off the top of my head I'd say "cross-country running" predates XC skiing. I'll look into it.--Cornellier (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I must contradict myself on the gallery. See WP:Galleries, which says, "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. Images in a gallery should be suitably captioned to explain their relevance both to the article subject and to the theme of the gallery, and the gallery should be appropriately titled (unless the theme of the gallery is clear from the context of the article). Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." User:HopsonRoad 22:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Sometimes less is more. We should also consider the experience of people viewing this page on an iPad / iPhone / Android equivalent, especially through a data connection. If you're interested in populating articles with images, I recommend you preview them in a mobile device. The way I do that is through the Safari web browser which can emulate various devices. As a side note it'd be interesting to see traffic analytics on Wikipedia use e.g. which browser, which device, how many viewers of en.wikipedia are in anglophone countries etc. --Cornellier (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't mobile devices such "smart" phones and tablets display a simplified version (less "heavy" content) of Wikipedia? That is at least the case for many newspapers and the national weather service where the mobile device version has the letter m instead of www in the url. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
The article displays with full content both with Wikipanion (app) and on Safari on my iPhone—I see no issues even with a gallery on that platform. User:HopsonRoad 19:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've made the nomination. User:HopsonRoad 19:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I have linked some X-C techniques to credible "how-to" videos, per WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues [my emphasis],[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons [my emphasis]." It seems to me that video demonstrates what's being described in a manner that still images cannot. User:HopsonRoad 14:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed them. See WP:EL "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article." - Ahunt (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I understand, but such links are not forbidden, just discouraged. Wikipedia has some rules that create a style, others that avoid legal peril. This seems to be one of style (assuming no mis-used copyrighted material is linked to). I suggest that if there are no Wikimedia that show what dynamic things look like, this could argue for in-line links. I look forward to the opinion of others. User:HopsonRoad 04:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
We don't put external links in the body of articles because it detracts from the encyclopedic content and looks promotional. There would have to be a very compelling reason to put them into the text. As long as the links don't violate WP:COPYLINK they can go under "External links" at the article end. - Ahunt (talk) 13:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cross-country_skiing/Archive_1&oldid=1136643178"