Jump to content

Talk:Athlete

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Sportsperson)


Political Correctness

[edit]

I know it is pc to say sportsperson, but in this case i fell it may be a severe disservice to wikipedia uses. Most people never hear the term, it is just sportsman. We should use sportsman because it is more commonly known and used. Political correctness in this case just causes confusion and a misunderstanding. We do not call it sportspersonship do we? no... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.22.210 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under WP:PRECISE. The alternative is not sportsman: it's sportsman or -woman, which is in fact much worse. Of course, the page should actually still be at athlete which solves the problem nicely (see below) — LlywelynII 08:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion request

[edit]

Perhaps some information on the ACTN3 Genotype and the idea of the "athletic gene"

All-around Athlete

[edit]

It would be wise to keep to exceptional examples of such athletes. In particular, there is no point in naming athletes who don't even have a wikipedia entry, unless this is to become a list of all-around athletes. Because of that I have (more than once) removed alleged all-around athletes that did not fulfil these requirements. --rimshotstalk 09:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK

[edit]

Here, in the UK, the word athlete means 'a person who competes in athletics and other sports' (though the definition 'a person who is good at sports' is also noted). I think it would be a good idea to make the athlete page into a disambiguation page that links both to here, and the page on athletics (track and field).--Jcvamp 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Athlete should go straight to the athlete disambiguation page, because it often refers to someone who participates in athletics rather than just a sportsperson generally. Alex9788 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the redirect on athlete, and also on the mis-spelling athelete. Alex9788 20:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Talk:List of words having different meanings in British and American English#Athlete. Do you have another source? I'm changing it back. Ewlyahoocom 05:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Athletics is on the list, and athlete has exactly the same principle. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I presume you used the find on page tool and didn't actually look through the list to see athletics. The word athlete has two commonly used meanings, hence it is ambiguous and athlete should go straight to the disambiguation page. Alex9788 09:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Talk:Athlete. Alex9788 08:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ewlyahoocom appears to have changed his mind and has changed the redirect. Thanks, Alex9788 09:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As 'athlete' has a single major meaning, which this page aspires to describe, that should be the page name, with a separate disambiguation page for the other minor related terms, such as the band. 'Athlete' is much more common than the ugly and rare 'sportsperson' including in the UK (I speak as a Brit who defends British English against marginalisation.) As a start to improving this page, I've removed the inaccurate reference to AmE, and - in a first for this page - included a reference to back it up. Here it is in full (note that order of meanings implies importance):
Collins English Dictionary (Millennium Ed) - a British publication
athlete (1) a person trained to compete in sports or exercises involving physical strength, speed or endurance. (2) a person who has a natural aptitude for physical activities. (3) Chiefly Brit. a competitor in track and field events.
Earthlyreason (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sportspeople not only players

[edit]

Expansion of definition

[edit]

When I think of a sportsperson, i think not only of the participants but those that are "sports figures." A sports figure would be a coach, or owner, or perhaps even a mascot (like the San Diego Chicken) although that one i'm VERY IFFY about. Would that be acceptable to add? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

definition - sportsperson or sports player?

[edit]

isn t the UK equivalent of the American 'athlete' in fact 'sports player' and not sportsperson? don t sportspeople include coaches, officials, etc.?

Propose namechange to "Athlete"

[edit]

Earthlyreason's Collins Dictionary citation and comments provide clarity as to the British usage of the word "Athlete" to generally mean a sports competitor. SillyFolkBoy said he would support changing this page's name to "Athlete" on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. I believe changing this page to "Athlete" will clear up ambiguity like the comments here about sportsperson(s) being coaches, owners, officials, mascots, etc. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I was astonished to punch in the perfectly servicable English word “athlete” only to find a disambiguation page linking to “athlete (sports)”, which itself redirected to the absurdly pretentious neologism “sportsperson.” This silly state of affairs is apparently the result of a move from Athlete to here in 2007 over purported British/American English confusion. 98.155.130.227 (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur for a variety of reasons. Will start the discussion below. — LlywelynII 08:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsperson → Athlete – The content of sportsperson → athlete; the content at athlete → athlete (disambiguation).

Soooooo many reasons: 1) More common: "Athlete" is the WP:COMMON (and gender-inclusive) WP:ENGLISH term for these people in modern American and British use and has been since the 50s. Since WP:PRECISE keeps us from using "sportsman", there's no contest at all: "sportsperson" is over 50× less common in British English and over 500× in America. (How much more common? After spending the entire lead section of the article trying to explain the British usage to American readers, the entire rest of the article uses "athlete" 8 times, "sportman" once, and "sportsperson" 0 times. Literally the only edit needed for the page is to reverse the order of the terms in the first sentence.)

2) Procedure: The page was begun at athlete in 2003 using American English. It's fine to explain nuances of British usage (we should!) but it is not at all acceptable to violate WP:ENGVAR by creating a WP:POVFORK and turning the WP:PRIMARY namespace into an unhelpful dab.

3) Primary: The content here is the only WP:PRIMARY sense of "athlete", which is currently occupied by a misleading melangerie which should be at athlete (disambiguation).

4) Precise: "Athlete" in any form of English easily refers to men or women involved in competitive athletics. "Sportsperson" in any form of English is a much rarer PC WP:NEOLOGISM attempting to include sportswomen with the more commonly used "sportsman"... but (as noted by separate editors above) it also includes other people involved with sport(s) outside of the competition itself: managers and coaches certainly, as well as managers, trainers, mascots, &c. The OED notes that British usage of "athlete" is somewhat more restrictive, but it is not completely exclusive; the EB9 ("athletæ") and 1911EB ("athlete") have articles on "athlete", albeit mostly on its classical history. Similarly American usage is not so lax that NASCAR drivers and golfers can call themselves "athletes" and have an unbiased audience keep a straight face.

Moreover, wherever the page is, we have to discuss that variant usage. Better to just have the article placed at "athlete", making discussion of its classical, British, and American senses much more natural.

5) Consensus: Well, I suppose y'all will share your voices and thoughts too. But the page was originally at athlete and moved without discussion. Since then, the British User:Earthlyreason, User:TommyKirchhoff, User:98.155.130.227, and myself have noted our opposition to this name with no one speaking to defend it. There is some discussion at Talk:athlete about keeping the dab in place rather than redirect to sportsperson directly, but that has to do with the British-English WP:POVFORK currently in place.  — LlywelynII 09:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
  • Comment should athletics similarly be changed, to point to sport and be displaced to athletics (disambiguation) ? -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, athletics currently deals with its own WP:ENGVAR issues just fine. I won't bothering going to see if it started out as American use (probably did), but they have to balance that there is an official and professional international use of athletics in addition to the more common one. Here, there is only one primary sense in both forms of English and nothing so overwhelming to overcome the original American form of the page. — LlywelynII 02:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm coming to the party late, but I agree with LlywelynII on this particular issue. For some people, "athletics" means any sport. For others, "athletics" means a particular sport than encompasses track and field but is not synonymous with track and field. I think those points should be kept in mind regarding any discussion for the movement or renaming of certain articles. Location (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE articles that carry disambiguation "(athlete)" should all be changed, since athlete is currently a disambiguation page, and if the rename goes through, will be about any sportsperson. They are therefore in many cases be ambiguous with other sportspeople sharing their names. In the current situation (disambiguation page at "athlete") and the new situation ("sportsperson" moved to "athlete") the disambiguation of "xyz (athlete)" all needs to be changed.
    I don't think that's necessarily true. It would depend on whether the disambiguator still distinguishes the person from others in other fields of sport. Certainly, whether this page is moved or not, many people already equate "athlete" with "sportsperson", but also think of "athletics" as track and field. bd2412 T 02:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Whenever a person is disambiguated with "athlete" from other people who are also sportspersons, then it is insufficiently disambiguous, as evidenced by the condition of "athlete" being a disambiguation page, and this move request, making it the same as sportsperson. So in all cases, where multiple sportspeople share the same name and one of those is a track-and-field-er, the disambiguation term needs to be changed. "Athletics" does not mean "track and field" to a large portion of the Wikipedia audience, where it means "sports". So, at any rate, pages that carry "(athlete)" as a disambiguator, where other sportspeople share the same name, will need to be changed. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If "(athlete)" doesn't work as a disambiguator, then it doesn't work irrespective of whether the article on people who participate in sports is at Athlete or Sportsperson. bd2412 T 14:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are no other sportspeople, then "athlete" would be equivalent to a disambiguator "sportsperson", which would only work if there are no other sportspeople. Though, yes, they should all be changed, but the critical ones are the ones where other sportspeople exist, since they are then ambiguous with several other people. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned below, they are already ambiguous with several other people for the majority of our readers. That has nothing to do with where this page is, and we should help move them or add disambiguating hatnotes regardless. — LlywelynII 02:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do BD one better and say this isn't true at all. There is no call to change any existing dab due to a change in the WP:ENGVAR usage here.
    On the other hand, given the current relative populations of the United States and United Kingdom, proper disambiguation should already address the fact that—for the vast, vast majority of our readers—the disambiguator "athlete" already is equivalent to the disambiguator "sportsperson". If you can find any example where it is being used to disambiguate a track-and-field athlete from a separate sportsperson, you should change the dab tag to something more precise, such as (runner), (javelinist), &c.
    And as a side note, welcome to the party. Go get yourself an actual user name. ; ) — LlywelynII 02:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    With Charles Bennett (athlete), I can't really tell because of the stubby nature of the page. If the only sport he engaged in was running, I'd say a move to Charles Bennett (runner) is in order; if he was a general athlete and the other Charles Bennetts were all specialists, I'd say leaving him where he is should be fine under WP:CONCISE. It does need a dab banner, though. [Done.]  — LlywelynII 02:27, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example for comparison: Lorry and Truck. The article is at Truck, and Lorry (which means the same thing in UK English) redirects to Truck. There are other possible meanings of both Lorry and Truck, which is why we have disambiguation pages at Lorry (disambiguation) and Truck (disambiguation). This is an equivalent situation. The article should be at Athlete, with Sportsperson redirecting to Athlete. To the extent that there are other meanings of either, there should be pages at Athlete (disambiguation) and Sportsperson (disambiguation). bd2412 T 18:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the best example. Yes, American English speakers outnumber Brits even with the Commonwealth tacked on; yes, Wikipedia is a fundamentally American project; yes, it is much, much more likely that Britons will understand Americanisms such as "fire" or "truck" than that Americans know enough Britlish to comprehend "WC", "lift", or a restrictive sense of "athlete". That said, our default policy is not to always redirect to American phrasings and spellings and sort out the rest with redirects and dabs. The history of editing and details* matter.
    *E.g., there's nearly no American who employs the spelling metre but no real harm from leaving the page there. It can be "glossed" with an or. The similar-but-not-identical sense of athlete, though, has got to be addressed at some length and (among other problems with the current page) it's more helpful to do all that discussion at athlete. A better comparison would be with billion, which is actually in even worse shape than sportsperson is.
    Charles Bennett (runner) would be accurate, but I would strongly argue against Charles Bennett (track and field athlete) or Charles Bennett (track athlete) or Charles Bennett (athletics (sport)). Bennett was not exclusively a track and field athlete as he competed in cross country. I think "athletics" and "sport" together in the disambiguation would just confuse a lot of people. Location (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The disambiguation (athletics (sport)) wasn't really a serious proposal: it was just a reductio. In any case, no one is going to argue for any of the longer, less helpful dabs if (runner) gets the job done. What do you think, though? Is it more helpful to move him to ~ (runner) or does the hatnote dab I already added get the job done? — LlywelynII 09:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(athlete)

[edit]

I would say that Bob (athlete) is adequate if Bob is known as a guy who does a lot of sports and there are no other Bobs who could reasonably be listed at Bob (disambiguation). But in general, if all Bob does is the javelin, he should be at Bob (javelinist) or something iff there is another Bob (who plays, say, basketball) with an article. In other words, (athlete) is no different than any other tag; it is occasionally adequate but should be avoided when it fails to clearly disambiguate the title. Red Slash 02:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

(athlete)

[edit]
Per "(athlete)" -- new requests for redisambiguation [1] -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per my talk page, I'm now going through these to fix incoming links before repointing them to disambiguation pages. If anyone wants to assist, feel free. After that's finished, I will propose another tranche of renames, although anyone may want to do that themselves as well. (especially if the next tranche falls off the end of my worklist) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On hold pending more participation in the discussion at WT:SPORTS. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Athlete. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Athletics#Relevant_Rfc_at_Talk:Sportsperson.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Athlete. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports#Athlete.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Thorpe

[edit]

Removed the reference to Jim Thorpe playing association football, professional or otherwise, as there is no mention of him playing it either on his wikipedia page or in his biography on the official Jim Thorpe website https://www.cmgww.com/sports/thorpe/ 82.27.104.216 (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which image is better suited for the lead?

[edit]

Per Wikipedia’s image selection guidelines at MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, MOS:LEADIMAGE, and MOS:DECORATION, which of the following two images is better suited as a lead image that offers the best overall encyclopedic benefit to readers of this Athlete article? Image A? Or Image B?

Image A

[edit]
Jim Thorpe at the 1912 Summer Olympics

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image B

[edit]
Athletic skills and abilities are integral to ice hockey players in their sport; Bryan Rust (far right) uses his wrists and hands to hold his stick and shoot the puck fast to try to score a goal, as goaltender Braden Holtby uses quick reflexes and flexibility to save the puck from entering the goal, Sidney Crosby (far left) and Matt Niskanen use physical strength and endurance to battle for rebound position near the net, and Dmitry Orlov (bottom) is out of the play because he has lost balance while skating and has fallen down to the ice.

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now where’s your Wikipedia policy-backed vote????? @Meters: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been undone multiple times, by more than one editor. The caption on your proposed image is ridiculously long. It does not appear to be an improvement to the article. It's a long paragraph that does not belong in the lead. As a challenged edit your image stasy out unless there is consensus here to include it. Please stop restoring it. Meters (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what Wikipedia policy aligns with your claim??? @Meters: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the old image, as the new caption text is overly long. Second may give the impression that you're on the wrong page, as it feel more about a specific sport. Femke (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But policy is more important than preferences. Do you have any policies to support this “too long”? Still have yet to hear any Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got three total people already who are reverting or against, with ZERO policy or guideline! Please show me what I’m not understanding from the encyclopedic perspective Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that I asked for a connection to WP policy or guideline, it gets silent all of a sudden or the topic gets changed??? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPSUCCINCT 204.237.49.127 (talk) 20:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I’ll move to a different angle, what specific phrases or words make the hockey caption too long? What should it have or not have? If that was the only image you could have in this article, how would you caption it yourself?

Or alternatively, if you want to keep the Thorpe image, how can you improve its caption so it’s at least as encyclopedic as my hockey caption, if not more so?

Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And please be specific about the hockey caption, specific words or phrases you like or dislike, and why, preferably backed with WP guidelines and policy. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the hockey caption is too long as lead image, what if the image goes into one of the lower sections instead of the lead? I’m trying to offer options here Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@204.237.49.127: Thank you, that really helps. So based on that standard, which specific words or phrases do you think are excessive? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps offer “your version” of captioning that photo Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrbeastmodeallday, please read MOS:CAPTION. Captions should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text. End of story. It's not succinct. You can cite any other policy, but as 204.237.49.127 mentioned MOS:CAPSUCCINCT applies too. It's not succinct. It includes superfluous details like about someone falling down, which is irrelevant to athletes. This can be suitable for alt-text, not a caption. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 21:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well which specific parts of the caption do you think are least good and most good? I’m willing to trim it down, but if all I hear is “no no no” then that’s not helpful because WP is ultimately about moving things forward, not stopping things others do.

I’d like to at least discuss an amicable reasonable middle ground regarding specific words or phrases in the caption, or image placement, etc. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@X-750: I am asking your perspective because to me, all the pieces are very relevant and helpful. So I’d like to know what your priorities are regarding the different phrases, and perhaps we can work out something based on that. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrbeastmodeallday, I highly urge you to read the article. Nowhere does it mention the word "team", which is crucial to the relevance of your photo and its inclusion into the article. Your image belongs at Team sport, and there is already an ice hockey image there. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:06, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because I’m not down for this “no no no” game, I don’t play that. I’m actually trying to work with you to build something we can both agree on, since you’re opposed to the initial idea I put forth. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@X750: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The “no no no” shit with vague, incomplete, or imprecise reasoning doesn’t fly with me, and that ultimately just becomes edit-warring. But I’m willing to work with you if you’ll work with me, and that’s how it should be. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m the type of person who does better with “if you change xyz, that will improve the image and make it suitable for the article” instead of just “no, you’re wrong, keep it out, it doesn’t belong” Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using profanity and condescending tone, and I quite frankly don't want to explain the fact that a photo of a team sport does not belong on an article about athletes. Team sports is dedicated to athletes who are engaged in a team sport. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say team. I’m just saying we should be trying to resolve our differences and find some common ground we can agree on. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with this, what aspects of that image/caption combination do you generally approve or think are worthy of being included? Specific words or phrases, etc Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't even the issue anymore, the inclusion of a team sport photo on a page about the individual athlete is simply not relevant! To put it this way: it's like including a photo of Great White Shark in the article Herd. Same district, wrong avenue. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can work based on that if I know what the good and bad are Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@X750: Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That’s definitely not true, but whatever, I’m not even gonna try on that because it’s just so far out there I literally have nothing to say.

Anyways, ok but what about an athlete being an athlete doing athlete things?

Because that’s what’s best for the article’s lead image any way you slice it. The current photo is an athlete in “non-athlete” mode. Yes even if he’s wearing a uniform and standing on a sports field, that’s only a decorative effect, and not illustrative.

What do you recommend as a good type of image for that context? It could be a different photo of Jim Thorpe. We should show an example of him “actively” being an athlete.

Ultimately, the photo should illustrate what being an athlete is, as much as possible. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standing with hands on hips isn’t an athlete, lots of people do that lots of times. What’s something you’d only see an athlete do? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Mrbeastmodeallday, if you could find a suitable free image that had a singular athlete competing in their respective sport, that would be very suitable. For example, Mo Farah running the 10,000m at the 2012 Olympic Games, or any other notable athlete competing at a notable event. All work. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there specific sports, skills, or movements that you think are better suited for illustrating “athlete” than others? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it’s better to show a more “raw” athletic skill like lifting or running or jumping, as opposed to something more nuanced with multiple facets like shooting a puck? Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting a puck implies you are playing hockey. No team sports. It doesn't matter what the skill is, running and jumping are considered track & field, literally "athletics". Lifting must be an image of a person engaging in a sanctioned weightlifting competition, such as Olympic weightlifting, IFBB, or the IPF. Pictures of someone lifting at the gym does not qualify. Instead of bickering over these minute details, I highly suggest you address the banners at the top of the page, seeing as how you have far more time than me. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 22:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal: how about we do a gallery at the end of the page, along the lines of, e.g., Hole. Then you can have a bunch of different images each with its own succinct caption. BD2412 T 23:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great suggestion, BD2412, however you'll find that as a result of his actions he has unfortunately been blocked. My interests don't really cover sports (although I'm active in motorsport), and if any editor has the time to browse Commons, I'm more than happy for that to be there. X-750 Rust In Peace... Polaris 23:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Current image of Thorpe is fine for the lead.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think Bo Jackson or Duke Kahanamoku would be on par, but no change is necessary. BD2412 T 03:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of countries mostly use the term athlete to refer to someone who participates in the sport of athletics. It would do us no harm to narrow our choice of pic to this area too. I could be happy with the Jim Thorpe pic (he is a great example of an athlete), but an action pic would be better. The ceramic pic under the Thorpe pic in the article is good. No bias to a modern country. But I have no idea what the caption means. The ice hockey suggestion is terrible. It's simply not a global sport. HiLo48 (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that an action pic would be great to include as the lead image; I'm not opposed to the current picture of Thorpe, but I think showing an individual in motion would be more impactful for this article. I took a look at Quality and Featured images from the "Athletics" category on Commons, and a few pictures that appeared promising to me were this picture of Isabellah Andersson, this picture of Usain Bolt, and this picture of Harold Correa. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some good hunting there. I like the Andersson pic, because it combines the classic event, the marathon, with a modern look of a female athlete. HiLo48 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are undoubtedly many images that would acceptable. In the interests of helping bring this to a close I'll also support using the Andersson image. Meters (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Women in American History

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabssz (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gabssz (talk) 06:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Athlete&oldid=1212936098"