Jump to content

Talk:Ultimate frisbee

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ken Gallager (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 14 May 2024 (rm another ext link bot notice). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Headings

I've long disliked the state this article is in, so I'm going to try to revamp it a bit. The first thing that must be done is figuring out what warrants inclusion into the article. Looking at Chess, an FA, as a model, I would go in this order: Rules (not including variants), Strategy, History, Competition (with subsections on different levels of play, tournaments, etc.) and Variants. I'm not sure where Spirit of the Game should be, perhaps a subsection of Rules. If no one says anything, I'm going to be bold and start. Mm40 (talk) 12:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the section on spirit games, but left the spirit section, for now. I think it should be shortened to one sentence and included in a different section. Beach drifter (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure Spirit Games should be edited out. It is a significant part of the Ultimate culture. In any case, if it is edited out then that paragraph should be renamed (done!) "Spirit of the Game", and not just "Spirit". There's a big difference.Dlivnat (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Spirit of the Game is a large enough part of ultimate that it needs some amount of coverage in the article. I'm not really convinced it need it's own section however. As for any other 'spirit' type things, I'm totally against them. Beach drifter (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've used the competition idea by Mm40. I made several level two headings into one, and made them level 3. The level 2 heading is "competition." On an unrelated note, I'm trying to find out about international college competition. ~Gosox(55)(55) 13:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

175 grams? 6 ounces? 15.432 grains? or perhaps atomic mass units?

I don't think that there's any need to write the disc's weight in anything other than grams.

  • There are many measurement systems and units, but we can't write in all of them all the time
  • The Ultimate disc is known world wide by players for weighing 175gr. If you ask an ultimate player how much an Ultimate disc weighs you'll get the answer in grams, regardless of where that player is from.
  • look at stores that make and sell Ultimate discs in the US and Canada (Discraft, VC). They all write the weight in grams.

Unless anyone has any strong objections I will remove the (6 oz) note.Dlivnat (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, remove, it. While the conversion is accurate, 175g is the only thing ever mentioned. Beach drifter (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Henry talk 21:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong objection to removing the 6 oz note (which is why I didn't start a new section with this being so old), but I would like to point out that this is the English language Wikipedia, and approximately 65% of English speakers use the US Customary Units as their primary system of measurement - 6 oz is far more informative to them than 175 grams. .אבי נ (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that 175g is the formal criteria. Also, gram are generally considered the "formal" measurement unit, again my impression Jazi Zilber (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I can understand the idea behind leaving in the 6oz as it is the typical measurement used for weight/mass in the U.S. part of the reason that the measurement is always listed as 175g is due to it being the international standard, as far as I am aware. As an American that plays the sport I have never seen a disc advertised as weighing 6oz nor would I have an understanding of what 6oz feels like. I agree that the note about 6oz should have been removed as it does not add to the description of the disc in a meaningful way.JMcT20 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defense or Defence?

Either way, the article must be consistent and we should stick to one way of spelling the word throughout the article. Personally, I vote for defense because:

  • It is more common (113m results in google vs 52m for defence)
  • The article in Wikipedia is spelled defense.
  • In the UPA rules and website it is always spelled: defense.

I will change the section back to defense now. I suggest anyone who wishes to change this discuss it here first.Dlivnat (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Addition

I've tried explaining to mimiken why their addition to the article is not notable enough for inclusion, that we can't list every long running pick up game simply because it is important to them or even notable locally. He/She continues to add the information back and I am unwilling to continue to revert. Beach drifter (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There's no reason to include this in the article.Dlivnat (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Origins' part of this page should be deleted so I did just that. Then I got called out for vandalism? WTF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.35.94 (talk) 19:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Does anyone else find the title really pretentious? The sport is frisbee -- 'ultimate' was added to distinguish the organized sport from playing it leisurely. At best, the wiki article should be "Ultimate Frisbee", with a parenthetical stating it's often shortened to "Ultimate". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.31.14 (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sport as played by two teams is called 'Ultimate Frisbee', or more commonly 'Ultimate' due to the fact that a company owns all the rights associated witht eh word 'frisbee' in conjuction with cpinning plastic discs. With all sports there is usually a distinction between organised sports and the same game played casually without the full set of rules, regulations and points system.Discojim (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do people really give a damn about trademarks? Just title it Ultimate Frisbee! I mean, seriously! — Preceding unsigned comment added by VegetaSaiyan (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always assumed calling it 'Ultimate' was simply short for 'Ultimate Frisbee', but the trademark thing is a valid point. And I hear you VegetaSaiyan. Eaj15 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's always been called Ultimate or Ultimate Frisbee, I understand the trademark issue, but Frisbee has become a generic term and sounds right, at least for someone that grew up with it. I suggest 'Disc ultimate'. It's more difinitive. I thought about 'Ultimate disc' but it sounds to much like a reference to the disc.Audra454 (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP: COMMONNAME states that we should use Ultimate Frisbee, due to it being more common. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not more common, though. See:
Also, why are we using capital letters for the name of this sport in the article? It's "baseball", not "Baseball"... trhaynes (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The same game played casually isn't even "Ultimate Frisbee", it's "Frisbee Football". Ultimate (with or without "Frisbee") is already the stuffy formal organized version of the casual game of Frisbee football. I'm wondering why this article doesn't even mention Frisbee football.

https://www.sportsrec.com/232339-how-to-play-frisbee-football.html
https://funandgames.org/frisbee-football/ 2001:4898:A800:1010:1876:7611:B58:AEF2 (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

another version of ultimate

Shouldn't "mini ultimate" be included as a variant? http://www.ultipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Ultimate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.230 (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sport of pussies?

the last sentence in the first parragraph reads "Many people have a tendency to view it as the sport of pussies." i know everyone is entitled to their opinion but doesnt that break some of the rules of wikipedia. should it remain like that? i did a quick google search for "sport of pussies" and it doesnt seem to be an idiomatic expression or slang or anything like that, most of the results sounded like porn, and this wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.48.210.197 (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --Closedmouth (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AUDL

The AUDL (American Ultimate Disc League) will be playing it's inaugural season this fall. I believe it could be a noteworthy contribution to this article because it is the first attempt (to my knowledge) at a professional Ultimate league. Along with this, rule changes (such as the inclusion of referees) will significantly affect how the game is played. More information can be found here: http://theaudl.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1. Kbraunnj (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax - Epic Ultimate

I play Ultimate, and I have never heard of Epic Ultimate. The section has been added on 11th of July, by new members, with a lot of text for the section, and the outside Internet (including Ultipedia) knows nothing about it. It looks like a humorous hoax. --Zbraniecki (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dimensions of the field?

I came to this page hoping to find the dimensions of a regulation-sized field and was disappointed. If anyone knows the field dimensions I think it should be included in the article. I'm back. I found the dimensions on a wiki commons page. If these are correct I believe it should be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ultimate_field.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.51.144 (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Since you did the legwork and found what you were looking for, why didn't you contribute and add it yourself? Be bold. Mbarbier (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how to fix and add proper citations, but the field dimensions listed for USA Ultimate rules are incorrect. The correct field dimensions are at the following link: https://usaultimate.org/rules/#appendix_a 24.151.103.37 (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History

This section is basically just a history of the Frisbee -- not of Ultimate Frisbee or organized play; I'm not sure what purpose it serves in its current form. L.cash.m (talk) 21:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's useful in that it provides an in depth explanation as to why "frisbee" is not in the sport's name. BenHochstedler (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

lede photo

The photo in the infobox is not ideal for several reasons. The soccer goal may be confusing to people not familiar with the game, everyone is facing away from the camera (perhaps this was intentional for anonymity, nevertheless it is distancing), the personal articles on the ground are distracting, and the angle of the shot is not ideal to view the play.

We need a new intro pic. Upload your favorite ulty shots.

Here's one (not the best) to get started:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Ultimateplay.jpg/800px-Ultimateplay.jpg Ggpauly (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate in Japan article should be re-written not merged

Each country that plays ultimate should have their own article. This article Ultimate in Japan was either a bad translation from Japanese or written by someone that doesn't have English as their first language. The Japanese are great competitors in ultimate and other disc sports and this article needs a re-write with references. Facts are wrong, there's no way ultimate was introduced to Japan in 1969, at the earliest it could have been introduced would be in the mid to late 1970s. Where's the evidence that it was introduced, by who? league start ups? tournament dates? promotions? Joel Silver did not invent ultimate, Jared Kass did and taught Silver the game at summer camp. This was not written by someone that knows ultimate, the language is weird and I see evidence of vandalism. There are not enough references. Ultimate in Japan should have it's own article but it should be re-written with facts. 24.116.25.28 (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of Japanese ultimate should be included in the main ultimate article. Looking at the google translation of refs for the Ultimate in Japan article, it isn't clear that there is any early history of ultimate per se in Japan there (distinguished from frisbee sports in general in Japan). Why isn't a Japanese language version of Ultimate in Japan listed? If one exists that should be the main article on this topic (I would think). Tournament results of Japanese teams could be summarized there, optionally translated into an English language version. Recent wins for Japanese international teams are given in the ultimate article, however these should be replaced with more recent results in the future. Ggpauly (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the early history of ultimate in japan should be included in the main ultimate (sport) article. There is a Japanese language article ultimate アルティメット but no Japanese history and no references, just incomplete US Ultimate history. It's mostly just a "how to" article. I know that Japans Frisbee history begins in the mid 70s when Wham-O sent some demonstrators there and Japan sent their first team to compete at the WFC Rose Bowl 76-77.24.116.25.28 (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the title

About the title, we still call it ultamite frisbee here i n the US. 73.254.189.112 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)Anonomuyus[reply]

Hexagon / mexican offense?>??

what is this for god sake?

Never heard on this one. And there was no Ho stack section.

I think This hexagon thing should be removed. Otherwise, we should list here another ten unheard of offensive stacks. German offense etc. etc. makes no sense.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy section. Blanking and sources

An anon user is continually removing information from this page. It does need references, but was only just tagged for it and the tag should be given time before anything is removed. I invite the user to comment with their specific concerns here. 331dot (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.
The strategy part was here for years. Most of it is commonly known conventions, so for most Ultimate players it feels ridiculous to ask for references for it.
Or course, references for those can be provided. But blanking is vandalism. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Do you think the whole old strategy section should stay as it is?
I am sure finding references is easy. But until then, do you think all of it should stay the same?
I had a chat with the admin that did the page protection over here [1]
page got protected for 48 hours only. But take a look so you get the gist.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the correct procedure is WP:BRD; once the removal was reverted, the page should have remained as it was before the removal so the issues could be discussed. I think the references needed tag should have been given time to work before the page was blanked and that the IP user should use a little common sense instead of being wrapped up in rules. 331dot (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. The mod also in the talk saw my point. If you wish to handle it once open, its better. As i might not do it correctly with procedure etc. thanks a lot Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROVEIT is very clear and is policy. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source."(emphasis mine) The Strategy section was un-sourced, and the policy I quoted leaves no room for "I like it and it makes sense to me so it should be there even though it is unproven". Accusations of vandalism are unfounded and inappropriate when you are the ones violating policy. 162.18.172.11 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You should first put in reference needed tag. Then after awhile you can remove.
WP:PROVEIT is apt for out of the blue long section.
When a basic part of an article (commonly known for people familiar with the subject) lacks sources. You ask for them. Not remove it.
1) Are you familiar with the game? Because one needs not to be playing the game to treat it as PROVEIT
2) Can you please use a user account if you wish to engage in editing fights?
3) Until we have a consensus. Do not force your opinion against the established version unless there is consensus in the talk page Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second what YechezkelZilber has said. A reference needed tag should be given time to work. Alternatively, in the first place, a post on the talk page requesting sources would also have worked, or at the bare minimum a thoughtful and polite explanation as to the reasoning for such a drastic edit instead of throwing policies in people's faces. You accomplish more with honey than with vinegar. No one has denied that references are needed- but there are ways to address the situation that give people the chance to fix the problem. Policies do not trump consensus. 331dot (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
2 people does not make consensus 2601:281:8100:4883:394C:2226:CB2F:3772 (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does one person. You should collaborate with others and work together to achieve goals you have that others actually agree with in principle. The point here is that the maintenance tag should be given time to work instead of throwing policies in people's faces without giving a chance for the issue to be fixed, or at least a polite, thoughtful explanation should be given for such a drastic edit. 331dot (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging information from Ken Westerfield

From reading the Ken Westerfield page, it seems to mostly just be a history of Ultimate. I think most of it should be either moved into this article or just deleted, with the information more specific to Westerfield himself remaining a part of his article. 57purple (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Someone seems to be spending an enormous amount of time promoting this figure. Is he truly notable? Learner001 (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hall of fame in 3 sports tends to say yes he is notable. Remember a bad article is not a reason to delete. GuzzyG (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. Ken is mostly freestyle frisbee, and is very much a long biographical page. Nothing to do with merging to here.
*maybe* copy a little bit to history part here. But this page here is not a long book on Ultimate pre history. History piece here is aptly short. The article is about Ultimate the game. And is long enough anyhow.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to agree then that he's notable and shouldn't have the page deleted, but to me it still seems that there's too much information about the history of Ultimate. I should probably admit though, I suggested this hoping someone else would pop up willing to actually move any necessary information across, I'm not great with these sorts of long biographical articles. (@Learner001, GuzzyG, and Jazi Zilber:) 57purple (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring vandalism - this page needs protection

Only registered users should be able to edit here.

Look at the last 10-15 edits. All IP edits were vandalism.

I am also including this nut that keeps deleting sections he does not like. And never heard on the tag of asking ofr references.

Please help folks Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

vandalistic deletions and references requests

Anonymous editors come here and delete sections wholesale because they want references.

Wikipedia does NOT work like that.

IF a part lacks referenes, you tag it as "[2]" to note that it needs proper sources.

ALSO, you notify the issue in the talk page.

IF this lack of references is not rectified, the correct way is to look up the references yourself instead of punishing the page.

Only after all the above can deletion be used. Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German offense?

I recall it being 4 - 1 -2 structure (4 handlers, 1 mid, and 2 deeps on both sides).

I think the current feature german isolation mixes it up.

Iso is a single cut feature. where one cutter is isolated. it can happen in various structures. German is a general offense structure.

The text in the article sounds muddy to me Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate_field_length is wrong

In the picture of playing field the endzones are 23m deep, which is wrong, because that would add up to (23+64+23)m = 110m, The correct size is 18m, (18+64+18) = 100m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:CC23:AC8F:2C84:1695:A690:45DC (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rules, as far as I recall (not 100% sure), give a minimum, but not a maximum or a standard. So there might be deviations. There are also differences between WFDF, AUDL, and the (now defunct) MLU.

Add in, yards to Meter conversion, and you get a decent mess.... Jazi Zilber (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The WFDF Rules have their field length as 100 m. The USA ultimate have the field length as 110m, with a proposal to change it to 100m in the 2020-2021 rules. Nolookscoobs (talk) 11:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could {@Graham87: or @DerHexer: please explain why the article was deleted, as I don't see a clear explanation in the deletion log? I tripped over this when I noticed that @Username Needed: had deleted a large number of links to the article. Even if the current article was deleted I can't see the logic of deleting all the redlinks, as the number of links suggested that an article was wanted. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

mix

Article states: mixed ultimate, usually it is 4-3, meaning either 4 men and 3 women at a time or 4 women and 3 men on the line.

"Usually" meaning that is what is commonly agreed upon between teams, or what is usually rule on official tournaments? Is it necessary for both teams to have the same number of men/women? 95.178.180.187 (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know this rules changes and depends on the organization... 81.4.100.172 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancouver Furious George (2nd nomination)

The above Candaian college Ultimate team has survived two AfDs and is facing a third. It would be nice if the keep arguments for sports organisations that don't fit Wikipedia:NSPORT were clearer, so that the keep and delete contingents don't keep talking past each other. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flexagon

As much as Felix says it's revolutionary, flex defence is just an amalgamation of other ideas about defence, like switching and bracketing. This content is mostly covered by the other sections of defence in my opinion. Tasmanmillen (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the kind of nonsensical wording "A separate type of defense" to "A combinatory type of defense". The terms are sourced, so I don't see a good reason to suppress them out of the article, just not to use misleading wording about them.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ultimate_frisbee&oldid=1223834100"