WikiProject iconSkiing and Snowboarding Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Skiing and Snowboarding, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of skiing and snowboarding articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Sport versus recreation[edit]

Is the intent of this template to point only to the competitive manifestations of skiing? If so, then the title should reflect that. If not, then the mostly widely practiced form, e.g.Cross-country skiing and Skiing, should be the first places pointed to. Competitive events should point to the "sport" version. User:HopsonRoad 21:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The notion of "nordic" skiing primarily refers to sport (competitive skiing), so recreational skiing should probably have a separate line. --Erik den yngre (talk) 08:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK check back later today I'll tweak it! --Cornellier (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion would be to have one line. Have "cross-country skiing" point to the general article and have a new entry, "competition" (or "racing") that points to ... (sport). I'll be bold and do this. You can undo, if you disagree. User:HopsonRoad 12:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be one link to XC skiing in general and one link to competitive XC, so that both appear in the navbar. It is not a big deal, but I still think it is slightly misleading to treat recreational (or general) XC skiing as "Nordic" because clear distinction between nordic and alpine exist primarily in a competitive context. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a native speaker, I can attest that the same distinction exists (at least in the US), pertaining to recreational skiing. User:HopsonRoad 13:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the terminological distinction (nordic vs alpine) exists in the recreational context in the US. From that perspective it is certainly OK since this the English language WP. But as actual practices lines are blurred indeed. If I go "off-piste" XC skiing in the hills, I use whatever technique (alpine parallel turn, telemark turn, classical kick, skating kick etc) is appropriate for the situation, I would clearly call such a trip "XC skiing (or ski hiking)" but it does not fit into the Nordic category. The type of equipment of course determines what kind of technique is easiest. So (apologies for repeating), I think that neat and definite categories like Nordic and Alpine primarily makes sense for competitive sports that operates within a strict institutional framework. For the navbar it is not a big deal. --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I did the update before seeing this conversation.
  • Is there a Wikipedia policy on whether "this the English language WP" as User:HopsonRoad states? Are things supposed to be defined according to usage by native speakers or should the approach be more global?
  • Regarding nordic vs. alpine, in my opinion these are pretty much mutually exclusive, whether recreational or competitive. If I go to a ski resort with alpine skis I can't suddenly change my mind and start out on a XC trail with parabolic skis and short poles. Likewise it's rare (but not theoretically impossible) to see someone coming down a mogul piste with XC gear. --Cornellier (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re naming. Policy is "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". But coverage should still have a global perspective. This easily creates terminological confusion as terms are understood differently. For that reason article introduction should make clear what the article is about, although we should avoid to create a definition that does not exist in the sources.
  • Re Nordic vs Alpine. You (Cornellier) have a point, but I don't fully agree. Of course, if you use heavy plastic boots you can't suddenly start skiing classical in groomed tracks, at those extremes distinctions are clear but there is a wide grey area between. Skiing in the Norwegian (and I guess other places too) backcountry is in this terminologically grey area, rather than clear distinctions there is a continuum from light to heavy gear. Many Norwegians go "XC skiing" up a hill then slide down "Alpine" or "Telemark" style. But again this is not a big issue with regard to the navbar, although it appears a bit odd to group Telemark (a popular recreational technique in Norway) with ski jumping (hardly done by amateurs) rather than with slalom (to which it is closely related). Sorry about the fuzzy discussion guys, you are doing a great job! --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on "Telemark", to me it's a turning style. But it's also an FIS competition. Can't seem to find info about what the competition involves. Dunno maybe it should be in with technique. --Cornellier (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Biathlon is listed as a "Nordic" disciplin. Strictly speaking this is not correct, within competitive skiing biathlon is a separate branch. --— Erik Jr. 22:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Nordic world championship only includes xcountry, jumping and combined. --— Erik Jr. 22:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ski marathon[edit]

Is it possible to link "Ski marathon" directly to the subsection in Cross-country skiing (sport)? User:HopsonRoad 13:12, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Perhaps not ideal as general solution because link is lost (or goes to article) if sub-section heading is changed.--— Erik Jr. 15:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Erik Jr.! It'll just go to the article and we'll be no worse off than we were before you made the change. (I did change the heading, however). User:HopsonRoad 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]