Talk:Exercise equipment

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jctheartist.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

re merge request

I intend to make Exercise machine a somewhat more detailed explanation of the machine aspects of exercise machines. I would have subordinated it to Exercise equipment myself otherwise. Exercise equipment can still have a cursory coverage of exercise machines, and should include all of the other kinds of equipment that do not involve machines. --24.221.8.253 04:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The stub is still small, so I'm not sure this split is necessary. Shawnc 15:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that there isn't much difference between "exercise" and "fitness" so a merge seems to make sense. If anything "fitness" training is a subset of "exercise", along with "strength" training and stretching. Hope this helps. --Elliotz (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

why no Multigym?

There seems to me to be a rather obvious omission, Multi-gym (Multigym) or in the US Home-Gym, but i'm not sure as these are very commonly found even in health centres etc. they'll be in someplace, but i can't find a separate article elsewhere under either term, or inclusion in the above mentioned exercise machine article so it would seem it has been missed, anyway i'll add it and if it's already in under another heading i guess someone will just revert it. Javabyte (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Page Needs a Serious Rework

I've added a couple of templates to this page. The tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia, the page does not use Wikipedia's standard layout, and it uses the second person inappropriately.

I am also mildly concerned about the possibility of a conflict of interest on the part of Jqarta, particularly given that the history of this page includes this summary from Jqarta:

Cleaned up and added additional marterial relevent to subject at hand. Info obtained and referenced from our website." 

(emphasis added, obviously) I think it's a relatively minor problem, if at all, but having noticed it I feel obliged to point it out. I think it's more likely to be good faith edits by someone who has not spent a great deal of time at the site.

Btw, the remainder of that comment 'from our website' doesn't show up on my default view of the talk page. It cuts off at "at hand".

~ender 2013-06-16 12:42:PM MST

I'll see what I can do about starting to clean this up, but I'm rather busy with a number of 3D projects, so I'll be delighted if someone else jumps in and tackles this.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 23:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Other categories needed

The listed categories: (Free weights, Resistance bands, Weight machines, Flexion machines), doesn't include a category which is non-moving, non-weight equipment: like chin-up bars, monkey bars, parallel bars, climbing rope, etc. - but I don't know what the general term is for that type of equipment.

I actually came here looking to find the name of a piece of equipment, or to learn terms to narrow down my search so I could find a piece of equipment that braces your forearms, and has pistol grip handles, and backboard to keep your upper body lined up, but leaves your legs dangling free, so that you can pull them up, or do twists (probably not recommended?).
~ender 2013-06-16 12:40:PM MST

Copyright

I removed the majority of this this article as it was a WP:COPYVIO of http://www.exerciseline.com/shop.php?a=guide. I went through the article's history and it appears that the entire article was replaced with the copyright violation. Here is the last version of the article before that happened. I thought about reverting back to that, but both versions are unsourced, so I just left it as is. If, however, somebody wants to revert back to the other version, I have no objection. Cheers! Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 01:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This would not have been a copyright violation if the reference to the article had not had it's author deleted (http://www.exerciseline.com/shop.php?a=guide)and the reference replaced by others. I did revert it back to the proper reference, but it was deleted again. There is no financial gain referencing ExerciseLine.com or "The guide to exercise equipment" in this instance, since the subject matter is generic in nature and helpful for this particular article. It is extremely hard to find generic information on this subject, without commercial reference to the equipment involved.

This article can be reverted back with the original proper reference applied "The guide to exercise equipment".

jquarta Jquarta (talk) 12:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

@Jquarta: I'm sorry, but no, it cannot be reverted back. Please see Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia content must be released to CC-BY-SA and GFDL. If the content is not released under these licenses, it is to be removed. Even if the content is properly rewritten, we would need to find a reliable source for it, as that link does not meet the criteria. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 15:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

What if "copyleft" is utilized in the article? This is an original online article by us, and can be modified as needed.

Jquarta (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That would bring us to the reliability issue. The article does not meet the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. Per WP:RS, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Basing the article on an unreliable source would not be a good way to go. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 15:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

We consider the information reliable, since we have been in business since 1996. But rules are rules. We can footnote the article throughout from assorted manufacturers, but then you get into the commercial aspects (which Wikipedia frowns) and their reliability also comes into question.

Jquarta (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not at trying to imply that the article's content is false or even unreliable by the dictionary definition of the word, just by the Wikipedia's policy definition. The same would be true for manufacturers' websites. These types of sources are considered primary sources and are very tricky to use correctly. The types of sources we need for this article (and any article) to be based on are (from WP:RS) university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers, etc. Apparition^{11 Complaints}/Mistakes 16:33, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I understand. The article was an ideal starter for any additions from other sources that you suggested. It had been on Wikipedia for close to two years, and my original complaint of the copyright issue was that the our original reference had been removed...Replaced with another.

Jquarta (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

history and years

Do we have any background as to the years when certain equipment were invented or first introduced?

Very interested in this but Wikipedia doesn't seem to cover "decade leg press was invented" or "century lat pulldown was introduced" and so on. WakandaQT (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)