Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climbing

Level-5 Vital Articles

I have made a submission at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 to have Richard Bass (never a Level-5 candidate) and Steph Davis (not really at Level-5 standard, and many more deserving female cases well ahead of her) removed. I also asked for Wolfgang Güllich to be made Level-5 (I think he is the equivalent to Chris Sharma and Adam Ondra, who are rightly Level-5s.)

I do think that his project should take an interest in the Level-5 list for the climbing and mountaineering section

In my view, it is missing for female:

• Josune Bereziartu, equivalent female rock-climber to Lynn Hill (who is a classic Level-5).
• Catherine Destivelle, probably the strongest female all-round climber in history (rock, alpinism, and Himalayan).
• Edurne Pasaban, first female to do all 14 eight thousanders (they do rightly have Gerlinde Kaltenbrunner, first to do without oxygen as Level-5).
• Janja Garnbret, the greatest-ever female indoor Olympic rock climber.

In my view, it is missing for male:

• Wolfgang Gullich, greatest with Ondra and Sharma, and given he broke more new grades than Ondra or Sharma, is possibly the greatest sport climber in history (i.e. father of sport climbing).
• Jerzy Kukuczka, after Messner, the 2nd greatest Himalayan mountaineer per the eight thousander list
• Fred Nicole, the real inventor of modern bouldering (like Gullich of bouldering), and created most of the hardest bouldering routes
• I think we need to have some of the greatest alpine/mixed climbers, such as Ueli Steck and Denis Urubko (harder area to judge, one could also consider Gaston Rébuffat, and Walter Bonatti).

Cases could be made for others (Jerry Moffatt, Ed Viesturs, Margo Hayes, Ron Kauk, Antoine Le Menestrel, Francois Legrand etc.), but I think the WikiProject Climbing should make sure that Level-5 includes the "no brainer" greats (and not include the ones that aren't clearly so). 78.18.243.8 (talk) 13:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with level5 rules, but your proposed list seems sensible. I would also agree that Bonatti and Rebufet be added, and would also suggest Comici and Royal Robbins as founders of modern large wall climbing. John Gill is another possible for bouldering. 31.187.2.16 (talk) 08:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I wound aggree with all the main suggestions (in the bulllets), and the additional ones above of Comici, Rebuffet, Bonatti and Robins. 31.187.2.138 (talk) 20:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Gullich, Destivelle and Bonatti are the three most obvious ones, should be obvious they are at highest level. 93.240.251.250 (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Wolfgang Gullich, Josune Bereziartu, Catherine Destivelle, and Edurne Pasaban have now been added to Level 5 for climbing/mountaineering, while Dick Bass, Steph Davis and Dean Potter, have been taken off (they should never have been considered Level 5's for climbing/mountaineering). The big outstanding omission is probably Walter Bonatti. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed Bonatti as a Level 5 at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Add Walter Bonatti. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Will support. 31.187.2.86 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Registered my support. Cassin is the next strongest candidate, with Janja, Steck and Marco as next strongest. They have Mallory and Irvine also listed? The ultimate BLP1Es?? 31.187.2.16 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Level 5 is far too Everest-heavy. I would say Janja is the next big omission. 78.18.228.191 (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 with both comments. 151.95.18.160 (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Support Bonatti for sure, and agree that there are too many "Everest" names. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Made my !vote for Bonatti and closed a passed. The other one that should be done is Cassin. After that, then there is probably no need for Mallory and Irvine, and the Level 4s should be Messner and Bonatti. Aszx5000 (talk) 00:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Move Climbing competition to "Competition climbing"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Climbing competition should be moved to "Competition climbing", as per Sport climbing, Traditional climbing, Aid climbing etc. It is now a major *type* of climbing (and in the Olympics), and should be re-named accordingly (it even includes the large sub-genre of Speed climbing). 78.18.249.143 (talk) 15:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC) 78.18.249.143 (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Competition climbing is an important form of rock climbing and is the more important topic. Aszx5000 (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Someone has undone this and moved it back to “climbing competitions”, which is completely wrong (includes non professional), without checking it here?? 31.187.2.215 (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I have asked for this to be fixed but I think an administrator is needed to reverse what has been done. Not sure why it happened, the person who did it said is was a WP:RMUM but I did not see them here? 78.19.88.172 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been away so had missed this. Have replied at the talk page to support changing it back to 'Competition climbing' (which it clearly is). It is only one senior editor who is clearly a non-climber, and has misread the topic, that it against it. However, they ignore all facts presented and create new, wilder, arguments. A bit depressing in some ways, especially given the popularity of 'competition climbing' for new editors on Wikipedia, but I do not see a way forward now. Aszx5000 (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Glossary of climbing terms

Well done to the editors who have finally cleaned up this article. Great to see the renewed interest in wiki-climbing! 31.187.2.188 (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea that the WikiProject Climbing should have no problem with. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)