Talk:Bill Smith (fell runner)

I'm tired, but here is a good cite with good info, and someone could add a lot from it

Here it is. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

•  Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where to put this (if at all) in the article

This is from the Harriers blog: Bills funeral is on Friday 14th October 2011 at 2:45pm, Good Shepherd church, Carr Lane East, Croxteth, Liverpool, L11 4UJ. Then Anfield Crematorium, 238 Priory Road, Liverpool, L4 2SL, at 4pm. I know WP:not. But it might have a place. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we have more about Fell running?

This doesn't really describe the sport. Does it need to? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is more context needed? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the lead from the Fell running article: "Fell running, also known as mountain running and hill running, is the sport of running and racing, off road, over upland country where the gradient climbed is a significant component of the difficulty. The name arises from the origins of the English sport on the fells of northern Britain, especially those in the Lake District. Fell races are organized on the premise that contenders possess mountain navigation skills and carry adequate survival equipment as prescribed by the organizer." I am finished dabbling with this article, but maybe somebody else wants to add something like it. I defer to others. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article rating

I first rated this a "stub" because it was. I would think it at least a "C" class, but I won't change ratings on articles I created and wrote. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Picture needed

This article would benefit from having a picture(s) of Bill Smith. If anybody has one and can upload it to Wikimedia Commons, it would help. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 03:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)!

"Fell running" or "Fellrunning"

A question of style. I left it in the latter form (without the space) where I was quoting and in the magazine title. This is an editorial issue, and I claim no expertise or superior knowledge. I note the name of the wikipedia article on the subject. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I note also that Mr. Smith's book using the split format: Smith, Bill (1985). Stud Marks on the Summit: A History of Amateur Fell Racing: 1861-1983.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

55 or 53 peaks in 23 hours and 55 minutes

We have three sources, and the better two (IMHO), including Smith's book — which is now on line and cited — say 53. I think this section should be changed to so reflect, and we can take the other source and make it a footnote. That's my opinion. I think a correction is in order. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This article was nominated for a WP:DYK which is under interminable consideration

See ‎Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Smith (Fell runner). You too can tell them whether this is worthy of inclusion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

 Done 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Peacocking in lead

I removed examples of peacocking in the lead, and they were reverted. This explains why.

• The point of the lead is to get to the hard facts. Opinion and details can be covered at leisure further on.
• Saying someone is "notable" is pointless peacocking. If they weren't notable they wouldn't have an article. It talks up the subject without conveying anything, simple verbage the reader has the plough though to get to the facts. Far better to state why he is notable.
• Saying someone is "well-known" is pointless peacocking for the same reasons. Why are they well-known? Who says they are well-known?
• Calling someone a "legend" is completely uninformative to the reader. Why are they a "legend"? In what way? One of the cites themselves bemoans the fact that "legend" has become a meaningless word. Would it not be better to state what he did to become a "legend"?
• Saying that the cites say "legend" does not negate Wikipedia's requirement to have clear, factual and neutral leads. There is plenty of room to report on his "legend" status, with actual attributed sources, later in the article.

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

After you twice reverted my earlier edits, I reverted yours. The citations (they are already in the article) repeatedly say that the word "legend" — which at least one says is a cliche in sports writing — really does apply to this particular individual. If you take the time to read all of the myriad citations, you will see this as a common theme. This is not "peacocking"; you are "bushel basketing", that is hiding this athlete's light under a basket. It is misleading, and not informative. I note that this article went through a rigorous DYK process, and this was never raised by any of the scrutinizing editors.

While I understand your citation of the rules, this is a case where the rules don't apply, or application of them produces a nonsensical result. What your are saying that the word "legend" could never appear, no matter how merited or how many times it appears in the WP:RS. Respectfully, this is a unique case where the facts make the a priori statement of policy irrelevant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you appear to be approaching this as if it was a discussion about whether Smith merits use of the word "legend". Both our opinions on that would be an irrelevant. Neither is this a matter of "rules". It's about having a good informative lead. As it stands the lead on this article tells the reader practically nothing, other than some people think Smith was very significant. What he did, and why they think it, remains a mystery saved for later.

The word "legend" tells the reader absolutely nothing factual other than some people may be of the opinion that he was one. How valid (or widespread) an opinion this is is unclear, as the reader is not told anything by which they may gauge it. Why not inform the reader as to why he was held in such high regard? If anyone is hiding the Smith's light under a basket it is you, by employing a meaningless and uninformative description that needs further qualified with "No, really, when we say legend, we really mean it in this case". The lead should start with the facts, let the resulting opinions come later. Do you not trust the facts to speak for themselves?

If you simply must describe him as a "legend", at least start out with the facts, and source this opinion to someone notable. There's plenty of room in an otherwise skimpy lead, or anywhere in the rest of the article.

And what of the pointless use of "notable" and "well known"? If anything they do the man and the article an injustice. They are the sort of of desperate (and a bit pathetic) notability claims you see all the time in new articles on their way to speedy deletion. This article doesn't need to sound so defensive. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You raise a lot of good points. However, if you look at the depth and breadth of the coverage (BBC, the Times, the Independent, Economist, etc.) and what they said this was really unique. His contribution to the literature of the sport was top shelf. The coverage is extraordinary for an obscure sport (at least to me, I had never heard of fell running before, although I'm from the other side of the world). Likewise, the fell runner publications were effusive. I got sucked into the subject when I read them. While I agree with parts of your analysis, I just don't have time to do a rewrite. Indeed, I rewrote this article too many times, and am no frame of mind to begin the quest yet again. Your fresh eyes and writing might do him (and the subject) more justice. So rework it and I'll get back later. I've got to try to do some real work that will pay my creditors. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Events appear out of sequence

In the first paragraph of the "Career" section the article states that Bill Smith took up fell running in 1971. The following paragraph begins "In 1969, 1970 and 1971 he put in respectable performances in the Fellsman Hike". Both statements are cited but it does not seem possible to me that both are correct. Perhaps someone with more knowledge/experience can review the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.159.178 (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

2010 Thieveley Pike Fell Race

One of our editors "culled" from External links this link Thieveley Pike Fell Race 2010 which I believe shows Bill Smith running. While I never met the man, I've seen his photograph in the media. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bill Smith (fell runner). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120425092129/http://www.newcastleac.org/?p=2485 to http://www.newcastleac.org/?p=2485

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Web archive link needed

"Bill Smith (1936–2011) photograph tribute". BOFRA. Retrieved 16 October 2011. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:36, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Death section

There is rather too much text here seeming to warn of the hazards of peat bogs and it could be trimmed significantly. Hundreds of thousands of walkers cross peat bogs every weekend in the UK and a vanishingly small number suffer as a result. Peat bogs per se are not that hazardous, that's not to say that there are not some localised hazards with e.g. quaking bogs. If Bill Smith had died in a road traffic accident, we would not have paragraphs and paragraphs about the hazards of roads, so why the tabloid-style focus on the hazards of peat bogs here? Relevant material, yes - as it's pertinent to this tragedy but we should keep it in proportion. cheers Geopersona (talk) 06:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)