Jump to content

Talk:Sport of athletics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Lost Content

The following appears to have been lost when Track running was changed to redirect here. There may be material here which needs merging into the article by someone who knows the subject:

lost content

Running events held at a purpose-built athletics track.

Running tracks are composed of two straights connected by two semicircular turns. The iasdfnnermost part of the sdftrack has a circumference of 400 metres. sdf A number of concentric lanes are marked on the track (usually eight, but occasionally more or fewer). It is coated with a rubberised surface that allows sdfrunners equipped with appropriate footwear (usuallysdf fitted with metal spikes that dig into the rubber) to get good grip, and cushions the impact on joints.

There are many track running events, differing slightly for men and women. For men, the commonly-run events include the 100,200,400,800,1500, 5000 and 10,000 metres, and for women 100,200,400,800,1500,3000 and 5000 metres.

Events 400 metres and shorter are regarded as sprint events, and are run exclusively in individual lanes (except in indoor areans where the second lap of the 400 metres in run 'out of lane'), with competitors using starting blocks to rest against in an attempt to get the fastest start possible, and competitors run as fast as they can for the entire race. These events, particularly the 100 metres, are primarily tests of muscle power, anerobic energy systems, technique, and reaction times.

Events of between 800 and 3000 metres are classed as middle-distance events. After a slightly staggered start, runners converge to the inner lane of the track. Collisions between runners are common. Runners change their speed throughout the race (usually speeding up for a sprint on the last lap), and tend to run in packs. Tactics are very important in these events. Some runners are capable of maintaining very high speeds for short periods of time, so these runners prefer to stay in a pack running relatively slowly until close to the end of the race and then sprint to the finish line, where other runners may be able to main slightly lower speeds for much longer periods and start accelerating further from the finish in the hope of tiring their competitors. Still other runners (notably many from Kenya) like to vary their pace throughout the race in the hope of disrupting their competitors' rhythm.

The longest track events, the 5,000 and 10,000 metres, are almost mini-marathons in terms of athletic requirements and tactics, and indeed many marathon runners also race in these events.

Track running also includes the 110 and 400 metre hurdles events, where at intervals around the track wooden barriers (mounted so that if they are touched by a competitor, they will fall down easily and allow the runner to continue). Competitors leap over the hurdles as they complete their race, though there is no penalty for touching or knocking over a hurdle except for the disruption it causes to the hurdler's stride. Hurdles is a highly technical event rewarding runners who can manage their stride length and timing perfectly.

The steeplechase is a 3000 metre (and thus middle-distance) event with with addition of five barriers at approximately 80 metre intervals around the track. These solid wooden flat-topped barriers cannot be knocked down, but competitors can use the top of them to leap off. It is also notable for adding a "water jump" in which the landing over the steeple is a shallow pool.

Track running events, particularly the 100 metre sprint, are regarded as the most prestigious events at the Summer Olympic Games. Competitors from the United States, mainly of African descent, have dominated athletics competition for many years, but there is little interest from American spectators outside Olympic games. A professional circuit of events is held, mainly throughout Europe, and there are biannual World Championships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarquin (talk • contribs) 16:51, 22 Sep 2002 (UTC)

Records

Hi Guys,

It's great to finally find a site that caters so exquisitely to my love of all things athletic. However, there is something that has been bothering me for some time. You see, I am a Dutch boy and was wondering how you call the material out of which running tracks are made. It is absolutely essential that I be fuirnished with this informatuion as soon as possible so get typing and hope to see you all in Holland in the near future,

Your Friend, Henricus A. van Puijenbroek Esq.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ZayZayEM (talk • contribs) 07:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should be separate

Some of the information above should be worked into an article but it should be a separate article. The article on track running should never have been made a redirect in the first place. I see there has already been a mini edit war about this - the articles were combined, then someone correctly separated them again, then someone else combined them again, evidently just trowing out the information in the track running article. If someone is going to take the time to work information about track running in, they should put it in a separate article, so others can add to the interesting subject of track running about which many books have been written. Bluelion 23:08, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fighting

Isn't wrestling (and to a modern extent, boxing, and martial arts) part of athletics?--ZayZayEM 06:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The definition says this article is about "Athletics, also known as track and field or track and field athletics", I guess (English is not my primary language) this is one of those differences between English and American English. Americans, I note, use athletics with a much wider meaning.
The IAAF (Self-defined as governing body for the sport of Athletics) in their Constitution defines athletics as "Track and field, road running, race walking, cross country running and mountain running".
For international users current content is coherent with for example my English-Spanish dictionary which translates Athletics as Atletismo, and in Spanish atletismo is for sure what is defined by IAAF. Bauhaus 05:18, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh! I've just see you are from Australia. Bauhaus 05:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I was actually working from a British source though. I've always considered Olympics to be divided into three things – Swimming races, Athletic sompetition and Team Sports. You aren't wrestling right if you fall into the other two categories. --ZayZayEM 12:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Awaiting Ratification

I'm about to update the record table with the 7:53.63 steeplechase record from Saif Saaeed Shaheen, the record is awaiting ratification, as are Liu Xiang's 110 m hurdles and Yelena Isinbayeva's Pole Vault. So now is coherent, is also coherent with steeplechase article. Do you think this fact should be advised? or would it be confusing or even misleading for general user, or too long to explain it doesn't mean that there is any doubt about its legality. I will also add the decathlon female record. This case is more complicated, is the first world record to be ratified, as long as there is no better perfonce before the end of the year. Bauhaus 05:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Move the page back

Why was this page moved.

It seems unneccesary. Even if a seperate page is to be demanded for the American definition of Athletics, it should be put at Athletics (American usage) and linked to from the Athletics article.

If no response is made, or a new article/disambiguation placed at Athletics, I will move it back.

If a new article is placed in Athletics describing American usage, I will combat its placement there.--ZayZayEM 00:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Move it back. I don't think that somebody wanted an article called "Athletics (American Usage)"; its just that in America (Canada is much like the United States in this, I think, but there may be some differences) this normally is called by the term "Track and Field" rather than, or as an adjective modifying, "Athletics." So redirect "Track and Field" to "Athletics" as it has been done, there's no reason to screw up the name of this article. Whoever did the changing didn't even have the courtesy to fix it so we don't get a double-redirect from Track and field. Gene Nygaard 00:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Done. violet/riga (t) 11:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Athletics (British usage) → Athletics

The following is the log taken from a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves

Reverting an odd undiscussed move that really just muddles things up.--ZayZayEM 00:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • It is rather an odd move, unless there's some (non-british?) definition of athletics someone wants to dab. Support move back, but willing to change my vote if a good reason is given. --fvw* 00:57, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
  • Support. Noisy | Talk 01:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've put this back to where it should be. I'm leaving this here (for the moment) to note that the person that did this (Vacuum), after having the BE/AmE difference of the word pointed out in a discussion below, moved the article and then attempted to block other people reverting it by making pointless edit history at the redirect (Athletics). violet/riga (t) 11:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral: Considering the Canadian and American usage of the words athletics and athletic is more of an ubiquitous definition over the entire world of sporting achievement and physical competition, isn't it best to make Athletics an article discussing the comprehensive usage used by most, if not all, of the 293,027,571 Americans and 32,507,874 Canadians, and then reference and link to the other article (Athletics (British usage)) which covers a limited definition used by 60,270,708 Britons? However, I do notice that the proposal derived from my question is somewhat covered in the article Sport and its related topics. But heck, if the Canadians (part of the British commonwealth) use "athletic" to describe their league for American football (which is overestimating their talents quite significantly) it does chip away at the British supremacy over the definition. —ExplorerCDT 15:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the IAAF uses the term Athletics in the 'British' form, I claim the world population (less the US and Canada) and win with 6 089 991 293... Only kidding, however the 'British' usage is, as I understand it, more common internationaly, and should take precedence --Neo 16:14, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Hence why I remain neutral, I have not seen anything saying that it is used in the rest of the world...But then, the compare the IAAF to the NCAA which covers all college sports in the United States (and some Canadian schools), makes more money and affects more athletes (AmE usage), I suppose than the IAAF. Further, the greek nouns αθλοσ (meaning a contest) and αθλετεσ (meaning contender/contestant) and the infinitive verb αθλειν (meaning to contend) does not limit its usage to track and field events (though many of the events of the original Olympic games, save wrestling, became the British Athletics and the American Track and Field). I would support this move if it was established that in general the denotations and connotations for the rest of the world (English-speaking and non-English speaking) gave added strength to the Bsdffffffffffritish concept and that there were some statement on the top of the Athletics page saying to the effect that "this page discusses (what would then be established as) the traditional definition, for more information on other forms of sporting and physical competition see Sport" or something on that order. (But then again, hasn't this page already been moved?) —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the reasons ExplorerCDT gave. Vacuum c 21:02, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • This request shouldn't even be here. Vacuum moved the page without discussion and then deliberately blocked blocked the original page. The page should be restored. No further discussion required. Jooler 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Competitions

Does anyone else think that maybe a section of the different types of competitions in athletics would be good? I'm not sure if there are already separate pages for all/any of them, but I certainly think a mention of some of the top level events would be good, such as the World Championships, some regional Championships, World Cup, Grand Prix and Golden League meetings as well as mentionaing National Championships/other domestic meetings and the Olympics. Evil Eye 22:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Coherent name scheme for all the event articles

I was wondering if the event articles could have better names. Within the domain of athletics, people know what 100 metres means. However, outside athletics, it could mean anything that has that distance. I took a look at the IAAF site and some others. They are also within the domain of athletics and are sometimes casual in their usage. I did notice that they used words like event, road race, track race. So what I was thinking is whether 100 metres should be changed to 100 metres track race or something like that.

Some of the articles are a bit more specific. For example, by including the term relay, although I think that is also somewhat of an athletes abbreviation and it should say relay race.

We are also inconsistent in using symbolic forms of units for some articles (e.g. 4 x 100 m relay) and complete form for others (e.g. 100 metres). I think we should use the complete form throughout.

When you add all the events like high jump, hurdles, walking races, road races, track races the naming issue gets a little more complicated. I don't have a coherent solution but I wondered if it was worth discussing. What do people think? Bobblewik 08:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This really isn't settled yet. First someone else bolded the title to Indoor Athletics, which brought me to cleaning this stuff up, bolding the title to Outdoor Athletics as well. But THE MILE didn't have an internal link. The only article I could find was the record progression, but certainly the storied tradition of the history of the Mile run can be fleshed out better than this. I also added the 3200 meters for the US High School event, which curiously disambiguates back to this main page. BUT THE 1600 meters, the equally awkward US event DOES NOT!! Color and consistency may vary, obviously. I'm obviously not the first to notice these inconsistencies and tried to fix them. Someone from the information police has once again screwed it up.Trackinfo (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Category feedback

Currently the category of "Sportspeople_by_nationality" and "Athletes_by_nationality" are distinct categories, with athletes being the British English definition (refering to "track and field athletes" in American English). Does everyone like this? Please leave a comment at Category_talk:Athletes_by_nationality.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawnc (talk • contribs) 08:18, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

standing PV

What is that, and when was this used? Starting the article would help. Drdr1989 05:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove it until somebody explains... Drdr1989 21:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was No consensus. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletics or track and field?

Don't mean to open a can of worms, but considering that "athletics" means something else in American and Canadian English, and that "track and field" is unambiguous and somewhat universal, wouldn't it make the most sense to name the article "Track and field?" -- Mwalcoff 02:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

oppose- i looked at the first link you provided below (The Track and Field Organisation) as a rationale for this move and it has literally nothing to do with athletics the sport. This seems like a premature move since most countries call 'track and field' athletics, as do the Olympic games. The governing body of the sport is called the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and call their World championship the "World Championships in Athletics". This off the top of my head, as yet, i don't think you have presented a convincing argument to counter the weight of such observations. David D. (Talk) 03:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • See new comments below -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not a native English speaker (although I consider myself fairly competent), but this is the first time I ever hear about the term "Track and Field". Take this as a contribution to the "6 billion people" argument – the world outside US&Ca will readily recognize "Athletics" (which is the term used by IAAF) while "Track and Field" looks odd to my ears, to put it mildly. I'm aware that this may sound as an argument out of ignorance, but since "readily recognized by the English-speaking word" point is raised, I'd like to throw my 2c in. Moving the article to somewhere else looks like a rotten compromise to me. Duja 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Here are some examples of "track and field" used in various dialects of English:
    • UK: BBC "Track and field round-up". 170,000 Google hits for /"track and field" site:.uk/.
    • Australia: Australian Track & Field Coaches Association. 122,000 Google hits for /"track and field" site:.au/.
    • New Zealand: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand calls its article on the subject "Athletics-Track and Field." 17,500 Google hits for /""track and field" site:.nz/
    • South Africa: The governing body is called Athletics South Africa, but the championships are called the South African Track and Field Championships. [1] Only 889 Google hits for /"track and field" site:.za/.

Of course, "track and field" is the only name for the sport commonly used in U.S. and Canadian English. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary does not even mention the use of "athletics" to mean "track and field." -- Mwalcoff 03:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: David D.'s comments:
  • I've changed the UK example per his comment.
    • It is still a weak example. It is a sub page of BBC athletics, a news in brief type section. The rest of the articles in the section are ONLY about 'track and field' events. You are not going to convince anyone that track and field is used in the UK with the kind of evidence you are presenting. I wouldn't flog that dead horse if I were you. The most valid argument you can make is the one you have started to outline below. I remain unconvinced but open minded. David D. (Talk) 04:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't doubt for a second that "athletics" is the primary term used in Commonwealth English, but I would guess that most native English speakers outside of the US and Canada know what "track and field" is. I suppose it's the opposite of "pants" and "trousers" -- North Americans primarily use the word "pants," but they understand the word "trousers." -- Mwalcoff 04:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • So your analogy is that pants should be a disambiguation page whereas trousers should be its own page (as they are)? I'm not quite sure what you are proposing here. What will the disambiguation page look like? David D. (Talk) 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • Exactly. This is what I propose for "Athletics":
Athletics may mean:
  • As explained below, "track and field" is nearly universally understood in the English-speaking world to refer to this sport. On the other hand, only 27% of native English speakers (those from outside the US or Canada) speak a dialect that uses the word "athletics" in this sense. North American English does not have a privileged position in Wikipedia, but if you have one term common to both North American and "Commonwealth" English, and another term unique to Commonwealth English, it makes sense to use the common term. If by "most countries" you are refering to countries that speak other languages, that is irrelevant. This is the English-language encylopedia, so the fact that the sport is called "athletismo" in Spanish or "atletika" in Czech has no bearing on our discussion.
    • So en wikipedia does not account for readers that use English as a second language? Or who are familiar with similar usage, as it is the same in their own language? I have not heard that argument before, are you sure this is in the guidelines? David D. (Talk) 04:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Certainly people who speak English as a second language count. They probably are more likely to speak British English than are native speakers, so perhaps the world distribution of English speakers is closer to 50/50. Neither North American nor British English has a privileged status here. But because this is the English Wikipedia, the key should be what is best understood by English speakers -- not what the equivalent word is in Romanian or Portuguese. This has come up on articles dealing with the United States; Spanish speakers have demanded the word "American" not be used to mean "U.S. national," since the word "americano" in Spanish refers to anyone who lives in North or South America. By the way, the 27% figure refers to native speakers who are not from the US or Canada. -- Mwalcoff 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I understood the intent but missed that Canada was added to the 67% from the US. I understand the language guidelines in wikipedia, but such a large move deserves real discussion. I was not involved in the discussion that occured previously, this has been a stable page for as long as i have edited here. Feedback from people involved in the orignal discussions will be worth a lot. David D. (Talk) 05:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The name of the IAAF should not trump the fact above. The world governing body of soccer is the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, but the name of the article on the sport is football (soccer), not "association football." At the same time, you have organizations like the National Collegiate Athletic Associations of the US and the Philippines and the Canadian Colleges Athletics Association, which use the word to mean sports in general. So the "official" definition of "athletics" depends on which organization is using it. The proper thing to do in such a case on Wikipedia is to use a disambiguation page. -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting closure of discussion

I'm reverting the closure of the discussion because only two people have contributed, myself included. I'll put out an RFC and see if we can get more input before we close it out. -- Mwalcoff 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't but I'm begining to realise that piping will have to occur regardless. Consequently it does not really matter either way and the soccer example seems to be a stable compromise that sets a good precedent. i am not really fussed either way. The real issue here is to free up the athletics page to be a disambiguation page. Are we supposed to set up a vote on this? David D. (Talk) 22:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Athletics (track and field). I will fix double redirects but changing the resulting Athletics redirect to a dab page and then fixing links to it are up to someone else. (A brave soul with WP:AWB no doubt.) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Move to Athletics (track and field)

If you wish to move the page put in a move request. Jooler 21:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So we are supposed to debate this at another page? Where? David D. (Talk) 21:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested Moves Jooler 22:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I already did that. Now we need an administrator to finish the task. -- Mwalcoff 22:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Where's the vote? Jooler 22:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked at that page and there does not seem to be any debate for most of the requests. Does that mean nothing gets moved or that no debate means it is not controversial? Where is the vote supposed to occur. On this talk page or on the request move page? i thought wikipedia was against votes? David D. (Talk) 22:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. You put in a request to move to Track and Field and then someone else moved it to Athletics (track and field). Which do you want? all such moves should have a vote. certainly one such as this which is likely to have opposition. You will note the page says "Discussion to find consensus is encouraged for page moves requested on this page. Requested moves may be implemented if there is a Wikipedia community consensus (generally 60% or more) supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator. The time for discussion may be extended if a consensus has not emerged. "Jooler 22:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please follow the correct procedure as per [2] - that means steps 1, 2, and 3. Jooler 22:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
OK thanks for the links. David D. (Talk) 22:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, here's a recap. I proposed a move from Athletics to Track and field, following the procedures on WP:RM. Only David D. responded. I then did an RFC to attract more comment, after which David Kernow responded. We all agreed a move would be proper. I then tried to move the page to Track and field, but could not, because there's already an article there (a redirect to Athletics). So I did another requested move to attract administrator attention. Between then and now, Usgnus suggested Athletics (track and field). David D. then moved the page to Athletics (track and field). -- Mwalcoff 22:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit conlifct] Good recap. Sorry i had not realised you had put in a formal request for a page move other wise i would not have initiated the bold move without more discussion. Do we have a consensus on Athletics (track and field)? Or is there more discussion required. As i said previously, the pipe link is the real issue here since an article is likely to say athletics or track and field. i wonder how many objections there will be if all references to athletics are changed to track and field? i think this could be problematic, so many of those links will have to be pipe linked to track and field anyway. Consequently i think the bracketed athletics (track and field) is acceptable. David D. (Talk) 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's start afresh and put in a new request for Athletics (track and field). --Usgnus 22:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears you put in a move today! - you have to wait at least five days and have a consensus. Jooler 22:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The procedure is to add to the Requested Moves page first. Then you add the Survey to the talk page. That's when the 5 day period begins. --Usgnus 22:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The original request was made last month. I put in a second request to attract admin attention after I thought we had consensus on the move. Between then and now, another suggestion has complicated the whole thing. -- Mwalcoff 22:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The complication is minor. The important thing is that there is a unanamous consensus to move the page. David D. (Talk) 22:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's do it by the book. I'll put in the new request. --Usgnus 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move for 19 July 2006

Athletics → Athletics (track and field) … Rationale: Athletics has a different meaning in English-speaking North America. The "track and field" will act as a disambiguator. This solution is just like the one for Football (soccer), which has served us well. —Usgnus 22:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
No, it wouldn't. Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics is not ambiguous, Athletics per se is. Accepted international usage? Aside from the IOC site being written in "British" English, that very page features the name track and field in parentheses, so track and field is internationally recognized too. JackLumber. 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
comment - Jack Lumber has openly admitted that he follows me around to counter my "anti-American English systematic bias" - he means "systemic". See [[5]]. Jooler 07:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying you have a bias? Or he is accusing you of having a bias? If you have such a bias, are you proposing that the using the page name athletics as a disambiguation page is wrong because of this bias, despite the arguments that have been made here for such a postion? Or is your position based on the fact that you think the arguments make no sense?
What are your thoughts on the football (soccer) page? If you have a bias, you are probably uncomfortable with that page too, yet it seems to be accepted as a good compromise. Why should that precedent not be used as a guideline in this case? David D. (Talk) 15:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I am saying that JackLumber's vote on this page only exists because he followed me here. I have said numerous times the football (soccer) should be at Association football. Football (soccer) is an awful bad fudged compromise 'cos you end up bloody awful article titles as seen amongst Category:Football (soccer). The situation is unlike this one because the term football predates the game of Association football and can be justifiably applied to all of the games mentioned in the football article that are played in various parts of the world. Jooler 00:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • I'm sure eyes are rolling at me for not embracing this new proposal. I do agree Athletics (track and field) would be better than Athletics. However, I still think the best idea would be simply Track and field, since I am under the impression that football (soccer) was meant to be a unique case. Also, because track and field, if not 100% universal, is unambiguous, I believe it would be better to favor that term over "athletics" throughout the article. A sentence like, "Athletics was the original event at the first Olympics" is confusing to an American eye, although I'm sure any people reading this article could figure out what's meant if they read the lead paragraph first. -- Mwalcoff 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Soccer is unambiguous, but as you know, it would have been impossible to get consensus to use it instead of football. --Usgnus 23:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree "Athletics" is unacceptable. Track and field athletics seems far more natural to me than messing about with parentheses, and far better than the blatant Americanism of "Track and field", which is just an abbreviation of this. Americans often further abbreviate it to "Track" when appropriate (though not "field" AFAIK). Personally I would much rather "football (soccer)" was at "Association football". Pipe tricks are not a motivation for article names: do not let the technology influence the the content. jnestorius(talk) 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is "Athletics" unacceptable? Any more than say Gymnastics? Is it more unacceptable than abseiling? Or Parkour? Jooler 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting examples, but does anyone call either of these gymnastics? If not, it is a bad analogy. David D. (Talk) 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Abseiling" is not used in the U.S. "Athletics" is used, with a different meaning. Where a universally understood term is available it should be used [e.g. gymnastics]; otherwise, where an unambiguous term is available it should be used [e.g. track and field]; otherwise just pick one [e.g. abseiling]. jnestorius(talk) 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I can support track and field athletics too. The argument that swayed me was that athletics should be a disambiguation page. The specific wording of the new page is less important too me. I do see the advantage of still having the word athletics in the title David D. (Talk) 14:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Disambiguation for what? If such a page is so necessary, where is the current athletics (disambiguation) page? It has failed to materialise over the five year history of Wikipedia. Jooler 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"For the American League baseball team based in Oakland, California see Oakland Athletics." This has been at the head of the page for a while. Not all disambiguation pages have (disambiguation) in the title. See Category:Disambiguation. Two examples of it being used from the perspective of general sports are found at Template:Technology and Purdue University. I did not look exhautively since that template seems to account for many of the weird "what links here" items. David D. (Talk) 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Really that is such a weak example of something that needs disambiguation from the primary usage. Perhaps you would like to see Giant moved because of the New York Giants. Ok I chose a bad example - as there are lots of meanings for Giant, but you get the idea. Apply it to Pirate or Mariner or other similar things. Jooler 11:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe a consensus might be found if folks indicated their primary and secondary preferences beside a list of possible names, the name then chosen being that with the most first and/or first and second preferences...?  Regards, David Kernow 16:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I suggest we switch to a multiple-choice ballot. I suppose this will only be taken into account if most or all the people who voted above take the trouble to revote below. jnestorius(talk) 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple choice poll

For purposes of evaluation, "Support"/"Strong support" = +1, "Oppose"/"Strong oppose" = -1, "Weak support" = +½, "Weak oppose" = -½, "Neutral" = 0. David Kernow 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that this "evaluation" is just a convenient guideline, not a binding value. jnestorius(talk) 18:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 1: Athletics

Evaluation on August 2... +3-2½ = +½. David Kernow 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 2: Athletics (track and field)

Evaluation on August 2... +6-2 = +4. David Kernow 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 3: Track and field athletics

Evaluation on August 2... +5½-3 = +2½. David Kernow 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Option 4: Track and field

Evaluation on August 2... +1-7½ = -6½. David Kernow 13:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I voted for both options 2 and 3 as I don't mind which is used, so long as a consensus found (and the opening sentence of the renamed article amended accordingly). Regards, David Kernow 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not entirely sure the move is needed at all, but I'd support a move to "Track and field athletics". "Athletics (track and field)" is, yes, parallel with "football (soccer)" but that's an ugly case to want to follow -- in general if the thing in parens isn't a category but is instead a synonym, something is wrong with using parens. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think a move is needed, but if one is made then I'd prefer Athletics (track and field). 'Track and field athletics' doesn't sound right and doesn't work well for me. I've never heard it called 'Track and field athletics', only as either 'Athletics' or 'Track and field'. – Axman (☏) 10:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears clear to me that "Athletics (track and field)" is clearly the most-preferred option, although we have yet to reach a consensus. So where do we go from here? -- Mwalcoff 22:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think at this point, we can re-list the the move on the Requested Moves page. Then the administrator who looks at this talk page can decide if there's enough of a consensus or not. --Usgnus 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Since when has strong counted as an extra half vote? In five years I've never seen a vote count for more than 1 before. If this is the case here then change my votes to strong Jooler 04:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        Where above does it say that strong oppose gets an extra half point? Read it carefully, you'll see that oppose and strong oppose are given equal weight. Only the weak support or oppose were given less weight. David D. (Talk) 05:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Two people, Axeman and and Bunch of Grapes voted neutral to Athletics but said in the discussion just above that they don't think it need to be changed, plus two three voted to support Athletics. Thats four five people saying it doesn't need to be changed, but only 3 people voted oppose to that option. I don't think it's at all clear. Jooler 04:35, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

We need to get more people involved. I had put a note on the talk page for the Euro championships so that might draw in a few more people ove rthe next week or so. i also not that some peopl who responded above have not returned to give more comments yet their thoughts are quite clear from what they wrote above. David D. (Talk) 04:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed my vote to strong and fixed the evaluation to match , and you've now made the evaluation not add up and deleted my comments?! Jooler 05:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Strong support AND support were equal to 1. Strong oppose and oppose were equal to -1. Where did you get the idea it was +/- 1.5? Regardless i am sure the numbers are not binding, just a guide. David D. (Talk) 05:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

So far, the only person who has had a strong objection to making Athletics a disambiguation page has been Jooler, who, judging from the userboxes on his userpage, appears to have something against American English. He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. But if we, for the sake of argument, disregard his objection, the general mood seems to be that making this page a disambiguation is acceptable. Evil Eye and Duja like the status quo but apparently can live with moving the content to Athletics (track and field). The only real question, in my eyes, is whether the content should be moved to Athletics (track and field) or Track and field athletics. (Or, for what it's worth, Track and field (athletics)). -- Mwalcoff 22:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we cannot for the moment disregard my objection. My objection counts just as much as any other person's views thank you very much. You've basically gone about this all wrong. You should have deiced what you wanted ot move it to than then made a proposal and not made it multiple choice so that voting becomes unclear. This has ended up the a proportional representation election with no clear winner. Jooler 00:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
"Athletics (track and field)" seems a clear front-runner at present...?  Since "athletics" seems to have (at least) two established meanings, the disambiugation "(track and field)" seems apposite (and in Wikipedia's style)...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Jooler, there is no requirement that a Move Request be presented as a single option versus the status quo. There has been discussion of this, see Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Approval voting? and Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Rewording of the page intro. Note that the current Wikipedia:Requested moves no longer advocates approval voting, but it certainly does not advocate a yes/no referendum either. jnestorius(talk) 17:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've finally come to a decision. My "votes" are above. Athletics is just used too much in North America to refer to activities that require physical exertion. We don't want to be biased against North America. --Usgnus 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Help disambiguating

For those who voted for the move, and hopefully others, I hope you can help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move. All the wikilinks to Athletics must now be disambiguating to one of the more specific links. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The list of articles linking to Athletics can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Athletics. Regards. -- Jeff3000 22:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a computer programmer, but could someone make a bot or other labor-saving device to help with this task? -- Mwalcoff 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's far from being an automatic process, each link has to be checked, and disambiguated to the correct link. Some will be directed towards the track and field article, others to Sports, others to the Oakland A's. So humans need to be involved. Just go through the list of articles that have links pick some and disambiguate the link. We need all the help we can get. -- Jeff3000 00:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
There are some obvious ones. A while back I got cydebot to fix all the ones in the medalsport templates. There are some other obvious ones, such as those with the format [[athletics|track]] as well as [[athletics|track and field]] that could go to cydebot although i have not made the request as yet. David D. (Talk) 01:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
You're right, those are obvious fixes. I've never asked Cydebot for specific requests. Could you ask him again? -- Jeff3000 02:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've just done 38. I don't mean to seem lazy, but if there's a chance of getting a bot to do some of this, I don't see the point in spending a lot of time. I saw several in medals boxes for individual athletes, and, as David says, someone should be able to make a bot that changes things like "[[athletics|track]]" to "[[athletics (track and field)|track]]". I wish I knew how to write scripts. -- Mwalcoff 02:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just put in the request. :) Hopefully it will be OK with cyde. See here: User_talk:Cyde#Sorry_to_bother_your_bot_again David D. (Talk) 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

TRACK IS FUN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.114.113 (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

The name Athletics (track and field) was directly patterned after Football (soccer), a horrible, MoS-defying "compromise" that proved overwhelmingly unpopular and was replaced with Association football (a term that isn't in common use, but is correct and unambiguous). Clearly, Track and field athletics is the equivalent choice here, and it's instantly recognizable for people who know the subject as either "athletics" or "track and field" [either of would be vastly preferable to the revolting "Athletics (track and field)"]. —David Levy 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely disagree. What exactly is the reason to not have this article at Athletics in the first place? user:Everyme 01:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the word "athletics" means something different to a huge number of English speakers.
But it doesn't seem as though you "completely disagree" with me. As noted above, I believe that the Athletics title would be vastly preferable to Athletics (track and field). —David Levy 01:11/01:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't particularly mind, but if "athletics" denotes something specifically different, we should have that article at this name. "Track and field athletics" is still the single most prominent usage by "relative majority", if not by absolute majority. Or is it? user:Everyme 14:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure of what you mean.
I can tell you that to Americans, the word "athletics" refers to sports in general (and if mentioned to an American, it probably would not be recognized as a reference to what we call "track and field"). Americans don't make up a majority of English speakers, but we do make up a majority of native English speakers. (There are more native English speakers from the United States than there are from all other countries combined.) —David Levy 15:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, convinced. If the majority of native speakers wouldn't recognoze it, it's unuseful to move it (in several naming discussions I've held the point that article titles should be optimised for readers' convenience, which doesn't necessarily match the strictly most correct name for a topic). user:Everyme 14:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but if "association football" is not in common use, then it isn't correct. What, are we going to pretend that WP:COMMONNAMES does not exist? If anything is, in fact, "horrible, MoS-defying compromise", then it's "association football" (with "track and field athletics" certainly a honorable mention). GregorB (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAMES is a description of how we generally do things, not a sacrosanct commandment handed down from above. In atypical situations, we find atypical solutions. They might not be perfect, but they're pragmatic. —David Levy 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I definitely have several problems with the naming of this article. Firstly, if we are to compare it to "association football", then "athletics" is the right way to go. Association football is the official name of the game, as demonstrated by the meaning of FIFA (Fédération Internationale de Football Association), the ruling body of association football. Similarly, the IAAF, the ruling body for athletics, refers to their sport as "athletics". Secondly, as has been addressed before, the title "Track and field athletics" completely ignores the MoS and goes with a name that is completely uncommon; the sport is never referred to as "track and field athletics". It is always referred to as "athletics" or "track and field", never both at the same time. Thirdly, technically "track and field" is only a subset of "athletics", as not all athletics events are held on the track or field. For example, road races, racewalks, and cross country races are part of the "athletics" umbrella and are governed by the IAAF. Mipchunk (talk) 20:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
1. If FIFA's terminology were the sole determining factor, we would have adopted the title "Association Football" (with an uppercase "F"), as that's FIFA's official English-language designation for the sport.
We went with "Association football" because it's the most practical title for the article. "Football" is the most widely used name, but there are many other codes of football (and an article about them). "Soccer" is the other common name, but that term is regarded as slang in many countries. "Association football" disambiguates the name from other codes of football, reflects the original derivation of "soccer," and conforms with our other football articles' titles. It isn't among the most common names for the sport, but it works the best as the article's title (a valid reason to deviate from a naming convention). "Football (soccer)", conversely, is neither a common name nor a sanctioned form of disambiguation, and it's simply ugly and unprofessional.
This article presents a similar challenge. "Athletics" carries multiple meanings, while "track and field" is an abbreviation of "track and field athletics" that's viewed by many as an Americanism. The article's current title correctly disambiguates "athletics" (as opposed to "Athletics (track and field)", which was directly patterned after the ill-advised "Football (soccer)"), and it reflects the original derivation of "track and field." Of any name that we could select, it probably is understandable to the most people.
2. It isn't true that "the sport is never referred to as 'track and field athletics'." The term can be found on the websites of both the International Athletic Foundation and the aforementioned International Association of Athletics Federations. It's used in book titles and many other contexts, and it appears to be somewhat common in Australia.
3. Those other events nonetheless are referred to as elements of "track and field," correct? —David Levy 10:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately road races, road racewalks, and cross country races are usually not included in the term "track and field" in either North America or the rest of the world, as none of those races involve the use of a track. They may of course use a track for convenience purposes, such as in the finish of the Olympic marathon, but most marathons are held on the streets of a city (Boston, Berlin, London, etc) and don't use the track.
I agree that there are some other uses for the term "athletics", but those belong in a separate disambiguation page. There is only one sport called Athletics, and this is it. Mipchunk (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If the above is accurate (and I possess no knowledge to the contrary), it's a strong argument for using the title "Athletics." —David Levy 19:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should the title be just "Athletics". That would be completely unintelligible to all Americans. "Track and Field" has to be part of the title.--Fizbin (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
While a title's international recognition is desirable, it isn't always feasible. Many of our articles' titles are unfamiliar in one English variety or another, and we remedy this problem via redirects, disambiguation pages and hatnotes. —David Levy 23:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Fizbin, I see your concern, but why can't we just make "Track and Field" redirect to "Athletics"? And, in the opening paragraph, we can immediately state that some refer to the sport as "Track and Field". And there's still the technicality that, in the United States, "Cross Country Running" and "Track and Field" are considered separate sports but different subsets of Athletics elsewhere. Mipchunk (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Two points here: a more specific one first. I concede that it isn't true that no one uses "track and field athletics". As I already noted elsewhere, Google test says 70-1 for "track and field" vs "track and field athletics" and 380-1 for "athletics" vs "track and field athletics". This is hardly an argument for choosing the latter as the article name.
Secondly, I'm also aware that WP:COMMONNAMES is not set in stone, but the point here is this: neither is WP:DISAMBIG. To use the football/soccer example (which is perfectly applicable to our athletics/track and field situation): it is impossible to devise a name for this article that would satisfy both WP:COMMONNAMES and WP:DISAMBIG. One of these has to be compromised, and if I had to pick which one, I'd pick WP:DISAMBIG without hesitation precisely because it is "description of how we generally do things, not a sacrosanct commandment handed down from above". We can get away with breaking WP:DISAMBIG if necessary, because it is merely a convention, one that is particular to Wikipedia. On the other hand, WP:COMMONNAMES is much more fundamental in nature: it is common to all reference works, and in fact it is a reflection of human thought: you simply can't have an article on apples and call it "oranges" just as you can't say that 2+2 equals 5. To summarize: let's choose a lesser evil, which is - in this particular case - "Athletics (track and field)". GregorB (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Handling a situation in which an entity has different names in different English varieties by titling the article as one of these names followed by another in parentheses is a far greater evil. Do you want us to end up with Cheque (check), Elevator (lift), Waistcoat (vest), and countless other examples? How is this situation any different (aside from Mipchunk's strong point that elements of Athletics aren't properly referred to as "track and field")? —David Levy 11:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how is this a greater evil. An illustration: when I first arrived at Association football after the move, I was confused by the title. I thought I clicked on the wrong link or something of the sort, and had to actually browse the article body to check if this was the article I wanted. No doubt many experienced the same. However, no one would be confused by Football (soccer). Casual visitors (i.e. non-editors) - who perhaps make 99% of the site's traffic - cannot see anything wrong with titles such as "Athletics (track and field)", because to perceive it as problematic one would have to be familiar with WP:DISAMBIG, which not even all editors are. These are two problems that aren't of the same order of magnitude - even considering the confusion factor of "Track and field athletics" being considerably smaller than that of "Association football". GregorB (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1. Given the fact that the terms "football" and "soccer" appear in bold in that article's first sentence (which clearly indicates that those are common names for association football), I can't imagine why you "had to actually browse the article body to check if this was the article [you] wanted."
2. To be clear, are you saying that you do advocate such titles as Elevator (lift) and Waistcoat (vest)? If not, how is this situation substantially different?
3. I perceive titles such as "Football (soccer)" and "Athletics (track and field)" as problematic not merely because they use nonstandard disambiguation, but because they're ugly and impractical. This is an opinion, but it was the overwhelmingly prevailing one in the most recent major Association football naming discussion. —David Levy 13:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
As for my confusion: that's exactly my point, I saw "football" and "soccer", saw the infobox photo that actually looked like a football match, yet I was in complete disbelief about "Association football" being the actual title of this article.
The examples you give are somewhat contrived; in these particular cases, violating WP:DISAMBIG is unnecessary, so my answer is no. But in a sense, my answer would be yes: I'd prefer Elevator (lift) over "foo", where foo is neither "Elevator" nor "Lift".
All article titles patterned like "Foo (bar)" may be percieved as ugly and/or impractical (and perhaps rightly so). Alternatives may be even uglier - as you say, that is a matter of opinion. As for the Association football naming discussion, I have a feeling that - despite stated reasons - many editors simply did not want to see "soccer" in the article title, for one reason or the other (Americanism, colloquialism, you name it). Whether it is true or not, I don't think that outcome of that discussion can automatically be transplanted here, because it does not constitute a guideline by itself. Granted, there's WP:BOLD, but there's also WP:CCC. GregorB (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
1. No offense, but I simply don't understand your initial confusion. You saw an unambiguous explanation that "football" and "soccer" are common names for association football. The idea that something familiar might be known by an unfamiliar name (and that said name might be used as the article's title) shouldn't come as a surprise.
2. The examples that I provided are no more contrived than "Athletics (track and field)" is. Setting aside the issue of whether "track and field" is a correct designation, it happens to be a term with only one common meaning. So rather than using it as a parenthetical, we could simply name the article Track and field (which already serves as a redirect), just as we use the titles Elevator and Waistcoat. I don't advocate this, but it would be vastly preferable to Athletics (track and field) (and if "track and field is an incorrect designation, both titles present the same problem).
3. The Association football discussion generated widespread agreement among participants from many countries. This includes Australia, Canada and the United States (where "soccer" is the usual term). I'm from the United States, always have known the sport primarily as "soccer," and absolutely despise the title "Football (soccer)".
4. Given the fact that the title "Athletics (track and field)" was directly based upon the title "Football (soccer)" (with the latter's use cited as precedent), that discussion's clear-cut outcome (overwhelming consensus that such formatting is inappropriate) is extraordinarily relevant. —David Levy 16:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding surprises: yeah, not being familiar with everything is hardly surprising. But there's principle of least astonishment being broken without a very good reason. That's a bona fide surprise, an unpleasant one.
I must admit "contrived" is not the best word; it's more like unnecessary, because these titles are atypical solutions for cases in which atypical solutions are obviously not necessary. Also: I don't quite get how "Athletics (track and field)" is terrible, while "Track and field athletics" is fine, although those are exact same words in different order, sans parentheses (and with a slightly more frankensteinian feel, but I guess that's just a matter of taste - and there's also WP:IDONTLIKEIT).
As for your point #4: it certainly is relevant, but I contend it isn't binding.
I don't know what to add, we're back to square one: WP:COMMONNAMES takes a back seat. GregorB (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
1. I don't see how the principle of least astonishment is relevant. And frankly, I still don't understand your astonishment.
2. You seem to have missed the point that your preferred disambiguation is equally "unnecessary."
The word "check" has multiple meanings, so we call the article "Cheque"; we don't disambiguate "Check" as "Check (cheque)". The word "lift" has multiple meanings, so we call the article "Elevator"; we don't disambiguate "Lift" as "Lift (elevator)". The word "vest" has multiple meanings, so we call the article "Waistcoat"; we don't disambiguate "Vest" as "Vest (waistcoat)".
Likewise, the word "athletics" has multiple meanings, so we could call the article "Track and field". Why do you instead advocate disambiguating "Athletics" as "Athletics (track and field)? What is different about this article that makes an "atypical solution" "necessary"?
3. "Track and field athletics" is vastly preferable to "Athletics (track and field)" because the former is an actual (albeit relatively uncommon) name for the article's subject. The phrase "Athletics (track and field)", conversely, is an arbitrary construct of our creation. —David Levy 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between the examples you provide and athletics/track and field. "Athletics" is an official name of the sport, and it has a wide international recognition, which makes "Track and field" inappropriate as the article name. Status of "athletics" as a term is best demonstrated in articles such as Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics; there are perhaps a hundred or so articles with "athletics" as a part of the title. So, this is in all quite unlike elevator/lift.
I must say I draw different conclusions from your observations in point #3. "Track and field athletics" is a very uncommon name (much more uncommon than either "elevator" or "lift", incidentally), and could be well considered inferior to "Athletics (track and field)". Choosing "arbitrary constructs" over uncommon names is the essence of Wikipedia disambiguation, and it is widely practiced as such. GregorB (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
1. [skipped to maintain the above numbering]
2. The term "lift" (in reference to the device also known as an "elevator") has wide international recognition, and it's officially recognized in some places (by governments and other organizations). The same is true of "elevator," of course, but "track and field" also is internationally recognized and formally used by various governing organizations.
Keep in mind, however, that I do not advocate adopting the title "Track and field", especially in light of Mipchunk's point that this doesn't refer to all elements of athletics (a strong argument in favor of the title "Athletics").
3. Titular disambiguation consisting of one name for the article's subject followed by another is not widely practiced on Wikipedia, and we've established overwhelming consensus against it (even when the alternative is to use an uncommon term). —David Levy 16:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no real issue with 'Track and field athletics' or 'Athletics (track and field)' but strongly object to 'Athletics'. Too large a chunk of the English speakers of the world (ie arguably more than half) know this sport only as 'track and field' to exclude this from the title.--Fizbin (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
In other words, our articles can never have British English titles? —David Levy 02:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Athletics & Track & Field

Evidently the sport is known internationally as athletics and calling it track and field just looks like a parochial anomaly. However, as that seems a redundant topic, maybe I can just reference what seems to be implied from the IAAF article (ie the governing body of the sport); that athletics encompasses road running, road walking and cross country, as well as stadium events. There's a marathon & I think 2 race walks at the current World Champs; they're not track and field events. Athletics would seem to be running, walking, jumping, throwing, in or out of a stadium setting. Track and Field doesn't really explain that. Hakluyt bean (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wiki standards and guidelines

Please stop saying things like "100m". The official Wiki rules and Physics rules say we have to put a space between that. It's "100 m". It's "1,500 m". This is an encyclopedia. This is NOT a place where people talk online and use abbreviations like "u", "ur", "it's", and so on. This is an encyclopedia, and like any paper encyclopedia, and like the Wiki rules, we are NOT to use abbreviations like "I'm". At the same time, "100m" is wrong too. Before you post, read the Wiki standards. 68.200.98.166 (talk) 01:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but in track and field, distances are usually written as "100M" and "1500M", not "100 m." and "1,500 m.". I do not think this is a breach of standards and guidelines, since I have never seen distances unabbreviated. ANarayan (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Track Surfacing Brand Names

In keeping with a policy my previous edits were subjected to, I have removed the recently added commercial names of "Beynon Tracks" and "Plexitracs" replacing them with the two common brand names that have been used as genericized names for All Weather Running Tracks. As an expert on the subject I don't find those brand names common at all. I will add those names to the list of other commercial contenders in the commercial market on the separate All-weather running tracks article where all players are on a equal footing.Trackinfo (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Events

Editors keep adjusting the event lists. I have tried to make it clear, the events without notations are common events as defined by being part of the Olympics and World Championships. The next gradation of less common events are events where World Records are kept 1000, Mile, 2000, 3000 deserve that notation. High School events--as defined by the NFHS should be mentioned as Official under that division. These other additions are not in official rule books, they are local additions. I've tried to make that notation to keep the mention of the events, but to put them in context. Adding other events are probably based on policies people might see in local meets, but cannot be considered common on a world wide or even United States basis. These might even be Indoor distances that have gotten in to the Outdoor list. Locally, anybody might run a race of any distance, but that does not relate to what is done on the large scale.Trackinfo (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Oakland Athletics

Should there be diambiguation note about the Oakland Athletics also known as the A's which is team in Major League Baseball?24.6.67.144 9 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

NO, NO, NO, not "track and field athletics"

The present name is unacceptable, because outside the US (and possibly Canada), "track and field" means precisely that — events held on a track or on the infield of a track (field). Outside the US, road races are NOT "track and field", and in particular marathons[1] are NOT "track and field"; neither is cross-country running, but both road races and cross-country running are within the ambit of "athletics" as defined by the IAAF [6].

Unfortunately, the term "track and field" (or "track and field athletics") is just as ambiguous, on a global basis, as "athletics". At least the term "Athletics" is well-defined by an international governing body, the IAAF.

I can't see any easy answer to this, beyond saying that the present name is unacceptable, and worse than the previous name. Some possible solutions:

(1) Strip out anything from this article that is not T&F according to the IAAF definition.
(2) Rename this article Track and field athletics, road running and cross-country
(3) Rename this article IAAF athletics
(4) Revert to the previous name Athletics

(1) and (2) make the title of this article correspond with its contents, but neither solves the wider problems. (2) is also a clumsy name. (4) is better than the present name, but creates difficulties for US readers. Alternative (3), IAAF athletics seems the best to me — it's unambiguous, and also a short and elegant name. Track and field and Track and field athletics should then become redirects to IAAF athletics#track and field, a section which should mention the different meanings of "track and field" inside and outside the US.
--NSH001 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

  • [1] with the exception of a small number of low-key marathons and ultramarathons that are actually held on a track; these are called "track marathons"

Incidentally, I only came across this problem when trying to categorise a new article, and found that Category:Athletics coaches was proposed for renaming at CfD, where the discussion had already been closed for rename, but not yet implemented. This instance is particularly bad because it is unnecessary (the US/non-US problem is already dealt with perfectly adequately by the different subcategories), but I would suggest that the remaining category moves be placed on hold until this issue is properly resolved.
--NSH001 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward option # 4 (assigning the title Athletics to the article, with the disambiguation page moved back to Athletics (disambiguation) and linked from the article via a hatnote). I'm American, incidentally. —David Levy 00:31/00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Just yesterday I had an idea on a compromise solution: let's call the article Athletics (track and field sports). "Track and field sports" could be considered a valid disambiguating context for "athletics", even if there are events in athletics that are indeed neither track nor field. Britannica also uses it (Google cache, see also bottom of the page, there's even Track and Field Sports (Athletics)). It's unwieldy, though; maybe it's also plain stupid, I can't really say. Other than that, return to "Athletics" is also OK, I guess. Would that be extended to categories? What about Category:Athletes and, in particular, Category:American track and field athletes? (I'm fine with these...) GregorB (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that "Athletics (track and field sports)" wouldn't be a good choice. As you have already said, it is pretty unwieldy. But more than that, it still confuses the reader into thinking that "track and field sports" is equivalent to the sport of "Athletics". Concerning your question of categories, the category "American track and field athletes" is a proper one, in that articles in that category are 1) athletes, 2) participate in events that are held on the track or field. The term "track and field" is not bad by itself; it's just that in the context of "athletics", it is only a subset. Mipchunk (talk) 08:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm an American and a track fan (are any of you guys doing the editing track fans?) and I think that the present name "Track and field athletics" is not appropriate. First and most importantly of all, nobody refers to the sport as "track and field athletics". Use common sense. It's either referred to as "athletics" or "track and field" or "track". These are what people commonly say. "Track and field athletics" is an awful sounding made up term. The same goes for "track athletics" and "track and field sports"(we shouldn't follow Britannica on that). Athletics (track and field), with (track and field) being a disambiguator, is a good compromise and that further explanation can be included in the article. That is was what it had been for a long time. "Athletics" is a term that is all-encompassing and includes track events, field events, road racing, and race walking.
As -NSH001 mentions, the governing body of the sport is the International Association of Athletics Federations and they exclusively refer to the sport as Athletics. The Olympics refer to the sport as Athletics. We should remember that English is a global language and that English language media in Europe, China, India, Africa etc. refer to the sport as athletics pretty much exclusively. It could be that there are more international readers of this entry than Americans. Type "athletics" into Google News and type "track and field" into Google News and I think you will notice a lot more articles from many countries appear when you enter "athletics" (34,000 vs 5,000).
Every two years there is a World Championships in Athletics (this is the official name) and every year there is a World Athletics Final. In the U.S. media the World Championships in Athletics is referred to as the "World Track and Field Championships" but in the rest of the world including Canadian print and broadcast media (their governing body is also called Athletics Canada) the event is referred to as the former. Let us agree to not use "track and field athletics" or "track athletics" in the title and in the body text.
Many people in the U.S. do understand what "athletics" means in this context even though in conversation we will say track or track and field. That "athletics" is synonymous with "sports" in the U.S. and that usage in this context will confuse Americans (an explanation in the text should make it clear enough) isn't a good enough argument for the entry to be titled "track and field" or "track and field athletics". The fact is that the governing body of the sport, the IAAF, refers to the sport as a whole as "Athletics" and this should be respected.TF85 (talk) 10:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1. While relatively uncommon, "track and field athletics" is not a "made up term" that "nobody" uses.
2. The above is a good rationale for using the title "Athletics". Why do you instead advocate a return to "Athletics (track and field)"? Have you read the entire discussion? Do you disagree that it would be bad to begin titling such articles in that format (e. g. "Lift (elevator)", "Vest (waistcoat)")? Are you familiar with the recent discussion regarding the title "Football (soccer)" (after which "Athletics (track and field)" was directly patterned)? And if it's incorrect to describe some elements of athletics as "track and field" (a point that I agree with), how is it appropriate to use that term as parenthetical disambiguation (even ignoring the fact that it defies our naming guidelines)? —David Levy 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Okay so it is incorrect to say nobody uses it. But we agree that its usage is uncommon. In a search, many if not most of the results for "track and field athletics" appear to be from editable dictionaries and encyclopedias.
2. Where is the evidence that "Athletics (track and field)" was directly patterned after "Football (soccer)"? It could just be a coincidence. If parenthesis are not acceptable (I see that they're used in a lot of Lift entries), then it should be titled "Athletics" with a redirect from Track and Field and an explanation that it's also known as 'track and field' in the United States. This pattern is consistent with the entries American Football, Pocket billiards and Table tennis even though these sports are known by different names in the U.S. If you go outside of sport, a budgerigar is known in the U.S. as a parakeet but the article is titled "budgerigar" with explanations on both pages.TF85 (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The suggestion to pattern this article's title after "Football (soccer)" was made on this very page. It hasn't even been archived yet, so you can find it above.
Some forms of parenthetical disambiguation are widely used at Wikipedia (and recommended in our style guide), but this type (an alternative name for the subject) is not.
And yes, I now advocate precisely the setup that you describe (unless and until a separate "Track and field" article is split from this one). —David Levy 20:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The title Track and field athletics is reasonable only if we are talking about events that take place of a Track or on a Field and not Road running, Race walking, Mountain running or Cross Country. I believe the previous article name was Athletics (track and field), which although a bit unwieldy, was considered a compromise between the international name - "Athletics" and US centric "Track and Field". Personally, I feel that if there had to be change, I should have simply been "Athletics" as used in Athletics Australia, Athletics New Zealand, UK Athletics and many other places... not to mention the IAAF. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 12:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If "Track and field athletics" is inappropriate because of the inapplicability of the "track and field" portion (a point that I agree with), the same is true of "Athletics (track and field)" (which was chosen specifically for consistency with "Football (soccer)", a title that we later established overwhelming consensus against).
Yes, let's go with "Athletics". —David Levy 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for it, the only thing that worries me is that sooner or later someone will complain about the title being ambiguous and/or confusing to American readers, and this whole discussion will be reset once more. My counterargument would be that, while "athletics" is sometimes synonymous with "sport", noone could reasonably expect that clicking on Athletics will actually send him to the article about Sport. So simply "Athletics" would work as a title. (While simply "Football" would not.) The only thing left that is really ambiguous is Category:Athletes; "athlete" is widely synonymous with "sportsperson", it's not just the US. Whether this actually requires some sort of renaming is another issue. GregorB (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
In the United States, the term "athletics" is very commonly used to mean "physical sports," so it's quite likely that many people type it with that in mind. However, a simple hatnote can ensure that the intended article remains one click away:
For sports in general, see Sport. For other uses, see Athletics (disambiguation).
No matter what title we select, people will complain, so we might was well pick the one that works the best. —David Levy 20:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The best point anyone has made yet is that the IAAF governs cross country and road racing in addition to track and field. Therefore, Athletics is the umbrella term which should get its own page. Then track & field, cross country, and road racing should all have their own pages that link from the Athletics page. That way users definitely find exactly what they're looking for. If I'm an American and I search for "track and field", I get the T&F page only. But if I'm a Brit who searches for "athletics" I find the umbrella page that empasses all three disciplines, as I should. If I want "cross country" individually, I can find that too. I know this response doesn't have the proper formatting, but I just wanted to weigh in. For what it's worth I did read the rest of the arguments and I am an American. - BV 10/2/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.159.240 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to make an umbrella "athletics" article that has links to "track and field", "road running", and "cross country" running, we'll need to write whole different articles before we establish this umbrella article. Also, the cross country running article absolutely sucks right now. It has a lot of information, but it is long-winded and also includes A TON of region-centric information. Mipchunk (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with what has been said here. The main topic "Athletics" should include track and field, road running and cross country etc as summarised sections to these linked subset of articles. The proposed hatnote should be used to disambiguate the usage of the word "Athletics" within the US. Athletics is clearly the primary term used by the IAAF, Olympic Games and all the international sporting bodies across the world. Wikipedia should be no different and the division of the sub topics and explanatory hatnote should be more than sufficient to accommodate American usage. Please see my WikiProject Athletics draft proposal for more info. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 03:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
We should also have a hatnote like this:
{{otheruses4||sport in general|sport|sportspeople in general|sportsperson|other uses|Athletics (disambiguation)}} Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 10:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
With regard to the hat note it would also have to have the redirect one for track and field (currently on the article). Also bear in mind over >1200 articles link to this one directly. I think there are strong arguments made above for this move to occur. Could a bot be employed to fix the links? David D. (Talk) 13:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I imagine the "athletics" article would begin with stating that it was "a term encompassing track and field, road running, and cross country" so that might not be entirely necessary. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 01:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
well being an athlete in both track and field and cross country; i can personally say that both are completely different and therefore should NOT be assocated together, under the same name.If it is to be considered then we should consider those in the stands part of track and field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interestedstudent (talk • contribs) 05:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sport_of_athletics/Archive_1&oldid=1137199227"