Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Figure Skating/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Figure Skating Terminology

I've started a Figure Skating Terminology page. Please add terms. :) Kolindigo 21:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be more appropriately titled "List of figure skating terms", in accordance with articles like list of blogging terms, list of legal terms, etc. The other thought I had was that I'd never heard of some of these terms before and could really use some citations (although I'm not sure what to cite -- a dictionary perhaps?), but then again, I'm not an expert in the field, so it's expected that I wouldn't know a lot. :-) theProject 23:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Is there a way to rename an article? The terms were just off the top of my head from the terms I'd heard Dick Button and Britsh Eurosport Guys repeat a lot. Chacking is documented here. Eligibility is based on who you take money from, so amatuer skaters would stop making names for themselves, turning pro, and leaving the amatuer world without their name recognized skaters (this worked a little too well...). Flutz is used a lot in regards to the female skaters cheating jumps. Pro as an old word for coach from the 1961 Memorial book, as well as used by Scott Hamilton in his autobiography to describe his early coaches. Popping a jump, um, mind if I quote Evan Lysacek on this? And I've been trying for a while to track down the exact point when the Kiss and Cry started being called the Kiss and Cry to no avail. Kolindigo 00:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To move a page, just click the move tab at the top (it's near the edit tab). I've done it for you this time. Thanks for the sources. theProject 01:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration?

First let me say just how pleased I am that this WikiProject has gained members! For a while there it was a one-woman show, and I'm really glad that's not the case anymore.

Secondly, what do you all think of an "official" collaboration? I assigned one, figure skating, back when I started the project. But I would like to start a discussion on what you guys would like to collaborate on, now that we have a few members. Personally, I'd like to keep figure skating as our collaboration and get it up to at least Good Article status. It doesn't need that much work, I believe; the biggest hurdle is finding sources for everything.

However--would anyone like a different collaboration article? I think we should push toward writing at least one Good Article. At the moment we only have 5 at B level (of those rated so far). Thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 13:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio checking?

What's the criteria for removing articles to be checked for copyvios? I just checked a pretty good number of phrases in Karen Magnussen, and I'm almost positive it hasn't been copied directly from an online source. I'm almost just as sure that it hasn't been copied straight from a book, as the various changes made by the IP after the initial large edit don't reflect the behaviour of one that has just copied straight out of a book. theProject 15:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, basically it's just checking phrases like you did. I'm sorry, I should have removed her from the copyvio checking list because I talked with an IP who claimed authorship (along with the additions to Tonia Kwiatkowski, see the talk page). I'm convinced they aren't copyvios.

I sometimes add people if it just smells of copyvio and I don't have time right then to check.--Fang Aili ^talk 16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Notability, revisited

I'm not sure exactly where to put this discussion, but I figure if I put it here, interested parties are most likely to see it and comment.

I've noticed that there are some people listed in subcategories of category:figure skaters who have no real notability in skating. There's at least one that's a pure vanity page, and one or two others who are people notable for other reasons who, it is claimed, used to be a figure skater. In order to argue that these pages don't belong on Wikipedia (in the first instance) or in the figure skating categories (in the second), we need to have some consensus about what makes a skater "notable".

So, here's a draft of some guidelines.

• Skaters in singles, pairs, or ice dancing who have been selected by their national federations to compete at an international junior or senior competition.
• Synchronized skating teams likewise, but not competitive Theatre on Ice teams (because the ISU does not yet regulate or hold championships in that discipline), and not individual skaters on these teams.
• Skaters who had a significant impact on the history of the sport, e.g., inventors of various figure skating elements.
• Professional skaters, ice shows, promoters of ice shows, etc who are well-known enough to be the subject of significant mainstream press coverage.
• Coaches and choreographers who have worked with competitors at the senior ISU Championships or the Olympic Winter Games, or have had a significant impact on the history of the sport, or have been the subject of significant mainstream press coverage relating to their work in skating.
• Current and former heads of national and international skating federations, or skating officials who have had a significant impact on the history of the sport, or have been the subject of significant mainstream press coverage relating to their work in skating.
• Skating clubs that have especially long traditions, had a significant impact on the history of the sport, have been the training site of multiple international competitors, and the like.

Comments? Dr.frog 23:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I know there are also articles about skaters who have competed on a senior national level but not international (yet). I personally draw the line at junior skaters who have not competed internationally (meaning, they are as yet non-notable), but I remain open to convincing. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think those are good guidelines. I'm not sure why there needs to be a Stephanie Rosenthal page (just an example; the only reason it seems that page exists is because she got two standing ovations at US Nationals), but I don't see a problem with having a page on a junior skater who won a JGP event, even if that might seem a little trivial. I think also skaters who appear in reality shows about skating (like Ice Diaries or that Fifth Estate special on Canadian Olympic hopefuls) should have their own entries, even if they haven't had international success. I definitely think Ottavio Cinquanta should have an article! By skating clubs, do you mean like Mariposa, or am I misunderstanding? Kolindigo 02:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno; I guess being featured on a reality TV show makes one notable for having been featured on a reality TV show, but does it make one notable as a skater if one still has no real accomplishments in skating? I agree that someone like Stephanie Rosenthal is a borderline case, having been shown in an elite skating competition on national TV, but never having competed internationally. Now that I think of it, we probably need to add something to account for skaters who finished in the top 3 at their country's senior national championships, but who never competed internationally for whatever reason. If they're listed in the results table at the U.S. Figure Skating Championships article, for instance, that's probably sufficient grounds to consider the skater notable. Anyway, yes, Mariposa would qualify as a notable club (it's been a major training center for champions from other countries, not just Canada). Likewise, the SC of Boston and the Broadmoor SC are certainly notable organizations in the sport. Dr.frog 03:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Top three finishers at a national competition. I'm not sure that should be a blanket. Sure, that works for the big countries like US, Canada, Japan, etc, but I can't name off the top of my head who was third at Swiss nationals, or any other Belgian skater besides for KVDP. And since Switzerland, just as an example, only has two international berths due to Lambiel being at the top, but Othman not breaking the top ten, I'm not sure it really matters in an encyclopedic sense. As for being on reality TV, I think, yes, it makes them notable as a reality TV person, but they are skaters and are on reality TV as skaters, so I think they deserve to be listed under figure skating. Kolindigo 05:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Re reality shows. OK, I have just created Category:Figure skating reality television participants. Not sure if this category will ever get large enough to require breaking down further by show; I suspect the fad for such shows will not last long. Anyway, backing up a bit, I think the main thing we have to consider is verifiability. If a person is truly notable in figure skating, nowadays it ought to be easy to look up their competitive record, and find press coverage of their accomplishments in the sport. The problem is applying the same standards to skaters active in the pre-television, pre-internet era when there were not so many international competitions and not so much press coverage of the sport generally. Dr.frog 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think those are reasonable guidelines as they stand right now. About top three finishes -- agree with Kolindigo that it shouldn't be a blanket. It should be roughly dependent on how many berths they get in the Worlds or Olympics, I think. About reality shows -- I think one such article ought to be taken to AfD just to get a feel for what the rest of the community thinks. I personally think that having an article on each contestant in a reality show is excessive, but clearly, the rest of Wikipedia disagrees (see the "Contestant on Survivor implies notability" rule we seem to have). theProject 16:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tagging talk pages and assessing articles

Wikipedia Assessments within AWB. Click on the image to see it in better resolution

Hi. If you still have work to do tagging talk pages and assessing articles, my AWB plugin might be of interest to you.

The plugin has two main modes of operation:

• Tagging talk pages, great for high-speed tagging
• Assessments mode, for reviewing articles (pictured)

As of the current version, WikiProjects with simple "generic" templates are supported by the plugin without the need for any special programatic support by me. I've had a look at your project's template and you seem to qualify.

For more information see:

• About the plugin
• About support for "generic" WikiProject templates
• User guide
• About AWB (AutoWikiBrowser)

Hope that helps. If you have any questions or find any bugs please let me know on the plugin's talk page. --Kingboyk 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of medal images

I have several of the skater pages on my watchlist as most of them competed in the Olympics. I've noticed over the past couple of weeks that people are swapping out the words like "1st, 2nd or 3rd" with one of the images -- Image:Goud.png, Image:Zilver.png and Image:Brons.png. I thought the best place to have this discussion would be here.

First, these images are really ugly. Second, using these images in the way that they are currently being used on a page like Sasha Cohen does a huge disservice as it conveys less information to a potential reader. I feel that it's much better to have the words (1st, 2nd, 3rd) in the box with a colored background than the silly images. --Sue Anne 20:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate the use of these images. I think 1st, 2nd, and 3rd are much more useful. The colored background idea is interesting. It would definitely scan better down a page. I think numerals should be used instead of the color of the medal. I'm also not that much of a fan of the medal tables that list the names of the competitions going across and the years going down, because not every skater competes in the same events every year (especially grand prix events), so there are going to be a lot of dashes or empty boxes, and that looks wrong. Those tables also aren't very useful if you just want to know where a skater placed at Europeans in 2004, for example. I think results should be seperated by season, not by event, and that there doesn't need to be a seperate table for every event. Just a line saying the placement, and the score if it was a personal best, seems like enough to me. Kolindigo 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Something else I've noticed. Using the medal images makes it more difficult to print out, especially without a color printer. Having the words (1st, 2nd) is more effective. —Pelladon 07:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

---

As I see it, there are several options:

Years at top, with medal images where appropriate--

Event	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Olympic Games						7th
World Championships			10th	10th	11th	4th
Four Continents		7th		4th
U.S. Championships	11th	4th

Years at side, split up by "major" and "other" events--

Senior Major Events
Season	Nationals	Europeans	Worlds	Olympics
2001-2002			-	6th
2000-2001			4th	-
1999-2000				-
1998-1999				-
1997-1998				4th

Senior Other Events
Season	ISU Grand Prix Final	Trophee Lalique	NHK Trophy	Skate America
2001-2002	4th	-	-	-
2000-2001	4th		-	-
1999-2000	-			-
1998-1999
1997-1998		-		-

Years at top, medal color used in cells--

Event	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006
Olympic Games						7th
World Championships			10th	10th	11th	4th
Four Continents		7th		4th		1st
U.S. Championships	11th	4th	3rd	1st	2nd	1st

I like the 3rd option best (even though I've been creating option #1 tables; I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier). The 2nd option has the advantage of using the actual seasons, but the table itself looks clumsy. Thoughts? Other options? --Fang Aili ^talk 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the current medal images are horrible. How about a better, less...chintzy one? I made this one: I can make more or different styles/with different or without fonts/etc if you like. I even have some decent pictures of world medals from podiums at events I've photographed. I am of two minds when it comes to medal graphics. I like the visual representation, but it can look fan page-ish. Other opinions? Vesperholly 08:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the all-text 3rd option. The medal images don't contribute more information than the equivalent text, and text is easier on people with disabilities (think people with visual impairments who need to use a zoom function or speech synthesizer device to read Wikipedia). Dr.frog 13:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I also prefer the all-text 3rd option. Regardless of what format we decide on, I will be available to assist changing all existing tables to the new format. - Gary van der Merwe 13:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the last one. I agree that using medal images feels gimicky and fanpage-ish. It also doesn't add any useful information that can't be represented by numerals. Kolindigo 13:57, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I concur with the others. 3rd option is best. --Fang Aili ^talk 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have consensuses? Vesperholly? I've made a list of articles that would need to be changed over here: User:Garyvdm/NeedToRemoveMedalImages - Gary van der Merwe 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing to keep in mind regarding the medal images without words, they can make it difficult for people with colorblindness to understand the table; and, for tables without both bronze and gold medals, there can be some ambiguity about the color on the screen even for people without colorblindess. That is, without a frame of reference, bronze may be mistaken for gold, and vice-versa. Neier 00:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say there's consensus. --Fang Aili ^talk 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm good with the tables without images. Vesperholly 07:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Geoboe84 Made this comment on my talk page:

What do you think if I used the medal background colors in the cells, but keep the medals themselves? (See Emily Hughes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoboe84 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 September 2006

Gary van der Merwe 08:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks ugly and doesn't solve any of the problems. Kolindigo 08:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Kolindigo, and it illustrates one of my points above because there is no indication that that medal is not gold. Neier 09:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we should try to keep the tables as simple as possible. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Did I miss something, or is the third option not "all-text"? I prefer the all-text one, but it's fourth here... theProject 14:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The 4^th table, but the 3^rd option (tables 2 and 3 go together as the 2nd option). Gary van der Merwe 15:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Project tag

I've changed the project tag {{WikiProject Figure Skating}} to say "priority" rather than "importance". I've noticed some other wikiprojects doing this and I think it makes sense. "Priority" is a more appropriate word. After all, it's not like any encyclopedic subject isn't "important", just that some are of wider interest than others. Please comment if you don't agree or have other ideas. (I realize that a lot of tags will have to be fixed; I can do this with AWB in the next few days.) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Standardizing disambiguation pages

I was poking around to see where I could add more of my photos, when I discovered the following:

• Tracy Wilson (figure skating)
• Robert McCall (figure skater)
• Charles Snelling (athlete)
• Nicholas Young (skater)

We should pick one designation and stick to it. I prefer figure skater, since that differentiates from a speed skater. Thoughts? Vesperholly 08:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "figure skater" as well. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus, I suppose? I'm on it. Vesperholly 10:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely one of the first two, with preference to the second. theProject 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What about skaters of the same name? For example, there are two skaters named Mark Mitchell, one in American singles, and one in Canadian dance. Kolindigo 22:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Mark Mitchell (American) and Mark Mitchell (Canadian)? --Fang Aili ^talk 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Make that Mark Mitchell (American figure skater) and Mark Mitchell (Canadian figure skater). There is another American Mark Mitchell who is the founder of CodeSourcery and one of the principal GNU Compiler Collection developers, who has nothing to do with figure skating. Dr.frog 13:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree with the second option here. It would help a little bit if they weren't redlinks though... :-) theProject 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Dr.frog's suggestion. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Adult figure skating

I've created an article about adult figure skating, though it could use some help. I'm only familiar with adult skating in the US. Vesperholly 10:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this article, perhaps we need to consider another thing that Wikipedia is not: a rulebook. Personally, my feeling is that anybody who understands jargon like "moves tests" or "passing average", or needs to know the correspondence between adult and standard-track test levels, either already owns a USFSA rulebook or needs to buy one, and should not be encouraged to try to use Wikipedia as a substitute. Aside from whether this level of detail is even interesting to a general audience, Wikipedia standards of notability and verifiability suggest that there should be independent third-party sources for information in Wikipedia rather than reliance solely on a primary source like the rulebook. Dr.frog 04:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

PharmAssist Skate the Nation Tour (2002)

The following request comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey:

This section below is mentioned in the article Sault Memorial Gardens. It is included as a long list of events at the arena. I am not sure that a list of figure skaters is best suited for an article about a hockey arena, but the list itself has merit.

Is there anyone that knows of a related article to the "PharmAssist Skate the Nation Tour (2002)" or could such an article be created?

List of participating skaters:

• Alexei Yagudin, Takeshi Honda, Brian Orser, Yelena Berezhnaya and Anton Sikharulidze, Shen Xue and Zhao Hongbo, Kyoko Ina and John Zimmerman, Maria Butyrskaya, Jennifer Robinson, Angela Nikodinov

Thanks for the help of WikiProject Figure Skating. Flibirigit 04:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Olympic medal table conventions

I think we should decide on a standard for these. Lately Sue Anne's been changing some of the wording around: "figure skating" to "Ladies' figure skating", for instance. (See [1], [2]). Personally I like it the way it was before: the first line declares the sport (figure skating), and the second line declares the discipline (ladies' singles, ice dancing, etc.). Thoughts? --Fang Aili ^talk 00:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The previous version is standard in just about all coverage of the Olympics I've seen. I've also seen "Skating" used as the general sport, but I think "Figure skating" works much better, as figure skating is much too distinct from speed skating. A general rule of thumb: events that should be included, and the only events that should be included, in the same general category, are those events in which, conceivably, an athlete in one might compete in another. It's entirely conceivable that a singles' skater might compete in pairs, but probably not in speedskating. theProject 03:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Color Coding Disciplines

User Fang Aili and myself were discussing if it were possible to color-code the four figure skating disciplines as the ISU does in their result tables (i.e. blue for mens, pink for ladies, green for pairs, and yellow for ice dancing). I think it would make quick-referencing easier to use the color coding. Here's an example of an ISU results table: [3]. I would like to hear your thoughts. Thanks. Geoboe84 (talk · contribs)

See this edit. Personally I think this color-coding is ugly and unnecessary. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it just makes the tables harder to read. I'd suggest that a better use of people's time would be filling in actual content in more articles, than fussing over formatting. Dr.frog 19:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's distracting, ugly, and it doesn't add anything to the articles. It only makes it harder to read. And that wasn't yellow, it was neon green. Kolindigo 19:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

ISU Personal Best Scores?

Should one use scores from a national championship for the ISU Personal Best Scores in {{Infobox Figure skater}}? Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

National championshps aren't ISU-sanctioned events, so I would think not. Dr.frog 18:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok - Thanks Gary van der Merwe ^(Talk) 05:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Terminology, revisited

Just a reminder to everyone that the correct terminology is pair skating and pair skater, not "pairs skating". I've just cleaned up a bunch of articles and there are probably more out there.

Also, "pair" is not the correct terminology for an ice dance team; the ISU uses couple. Dr.frog 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing article deletion debates

FYI, other folks might want to comment on ongoing deletion debates for articles about Zsa Zsa Riordan, Michael Solonoski, and Melissa Bulanhagui. Dr.frog 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In that vein, there's also a proposed merge for List of Canadian figure skating national champions with Canadian Figure Skating Championships. Kolindigo 23:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And, for another ongoing controversy, see Talk:Ice Capades. Dr.frog 03:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)