Talk:1999 World Championships in Athletics

ATHLETICS

1. Athletics is very active and energetic.
2. People train for years to get soo far.
3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.216.125 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As Disambiguation

It is clear that this page has one, distinct topic into which all (or most) of the successive pages fit. By WP guidelines, this page should use the "(disambiguation)" in the title. Because Athletics (overview) is the topic page, Athletics should forward to it. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

It may be clear to you. But I've fixed a lot of links to this disambiguation page where the intended meaning is for track and field, and not for Athletics (overview). --Tesscass (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Track and field fall under the general topic of "Athletics." That is crystal clear.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Earthlyreason posted this on the discussion page of Sportsperson:

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.

In following Boolean function: If "Athlete" is a general term used in Great Britain for a sports competitor and not solely the "track & field" competitor; and the Gaelic Athletic Association regards football and coaching; then doesn't it make sense that Athletics should regard the general topic and not merely just the narrowed topic ?TommyKirchhoff (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation says:

If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page.

According to this WP Disambiguation principle, this page should NOT be a disambiguation page, but should hold the article of general topic, Athletics (overview). My suggestion to merge (below) follows the guidelines, and will greatly reduce the ambiguity in which this topic swims. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I wish "athletics" isn't used interchangeably with "track and field". My point is only that for a lot of the pages I've disambiguated, the editors used the word "athletics" to mean track and field competitions. To me, having fixed so many links to athletics means it is ambiguous. --Tesscass (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tesscass, and SillyFolkBoy and I (TommyKirchhoff) all believe "athletics" is indeed ambiguous. This is why we should follow WP guidelines to disambiguate the major topic from the sub-topics. Athletics (sport) is a sub-topic, and it is sheerly confusing to North Americans, and most anyone else whose English is not strong enough to differentiate between "athletic" and "athletics meant to mean track and field." Regardless of how many links mean to convey "athletics as track and field," they do not change the fact that Athletics (sport) is a sub-set of "Athletics" as a general term closely related to "athletic" and their root word, "Athlete." When I first landed on the Athletics (sport) page, I was baffled as to how "athletics" meant "the competitive sports of track & field & footracing, popular because they require little equipment." Although English-speaking Europeans might find the same confusion if they land on a general page about "athletics," the Collins Dictionary citation and Earthlyreason's post both connote acceptance of the root word "athlete" as a general term. The suggestions I make here are not radical; they follow the WP guidelines for disambiguation, which we all agree that "athletics" is ambiguous.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If you agree it is ambiguous, then why are you suggesting that this page should NOT be a disambiguation page, but should hold the article of general topic, Athletics (overview)? I'm not convinced that the overview qualifies as a primary topic. The complaint you appear to lodge against Athletics (sport) could be addressed as well by editing that article (and the several others in related terms) as by moving articles about. As it stands now, I find Athletics (overview) to be the weaker and more confusing article. It appears to be describing the regimen of an athlete rather than what is more commonly understood by athletics. I see no reason at the present that Athletics should not remain a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It seems someone has now proposed Athletics (overview) for deletion. I think this topic needs involvement from several wiki projects at the same place. How do we do that? --Tesscass (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Bkonrad: I am suggesting it should NOT be a dab because the WP guidelines say this page should be the article of general topic, NOT a disambiguation page; please read the dab guideline above again. Also, it sounds like you need to read both the Athletics (overview) and the Athletics (sport) pages again to better comprehend them for yourself. The overview page is unquestionably the general topic, regardless that it is a much newer page with fewer links, and is not as developed. Athletics (sport) is a specific set of athletic games and fits neatly under Athletics (overview), as does the Oakland Athletics which is a baseball team; I have lodged no such complaint about the article, and believe it needs to remain the way it is, but that it could have a better name. The NCAA is a giant organization which liberally uses "athletics" to mean the general topic; to ignore that the general topic exists in favor of promoting the sub-topic of Athletics (sport) is to ignore that the NCAA exists. National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics also means athletics as a general topic.

Tesscass: JohnBlackburne egregiously suggested the deletion, but I think it's safe to say that idea has been debunked. SFB is the project manager; SFB posted on Blackburne's suggestion to delete that Athletics (overview) is notable enough. I don't think this needs to get a bunch of people involved; the people who are involved just need to get comfortable with the concept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the British, and that there is no global English semantic difference between "athletic" and "athletics." Thus, this page should NOT be a disambiguation page, according to Wikipedia guidelines. There should be a separate dab called Athletics (disambiguation).TommyKirchhoff (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please take a moment and skim over the first few sections of the NCAA's Title IX: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/ncaa/ncaa/about+the+ncaa/diversity+and+inclusion/gender+equity+and+title+ix/facts.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyKirchhoff (talk • contribs) 12:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Athletics (overview)

I looked up the IP address of the first comment made by 90.212.216.125. It is from the Isle of Man. Nothing about it makes me think specifically of the games known as track & field, and footracing. From a global English perspective, a fundamental difference between athletic and athletics is very subtle, semantic, and seems to be isolated to Great Britain (and other isolated places). Athletics is used liberally to mean competitive sports in most areas of the world, and in North America and Asia (translations) prolifically. I believe the overbearing, global meaning of Athletics is competitive sports, not the specific "games of track & field." This page should contain the information from Athletics (overview) with a tophat link to the dab and to Athletics (sport), which might need a less ambiguous name. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

See Help:Merging for the recommended way to propose a merge. Or you may be waiting a long time without anyone taking notice. --Tesscass (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't do this move. It will make it much harder to correct incoming links, and it will impose one variety of English over another. I don't, personally, think that Britain is really an "isolated place". DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with DuncanHill. The exact term "athletics" is ambiguous and the current slew of pages describing the various aspects of athletics are a complete mess. I suggest expending some effort to improve the Athletics (overview), as well as the other related articles. There may be possibility to revisit a move in the future, but at present I think a disambiguation page is the most appropriate. older ≠ wiser 14:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I advocate that "Athletics" remain a disambiguation, with the two principle targets being "Athletics (sport)" [European meaning, as in IAAF style] and "Athletics (activity)" [American meaning as in NCAA style].

Following on from Tommy Kirchhoff's comments here... Do you have a citation that states that the American definition of track and field includes cross country? USA Track & Field seems to think they are separate sports. From what I can gather, US colleges treat them as distinct too – otherwise, why do they have separate "track" and "XC" teams?

What is the purpose of the NCAA link? I understand that the meaning of athletics in the US is that found at athletics (overview), but it does not touch on the international ambiguity of the word, thus suggesting that it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

The idea that athletic sports is not developed because of its titling does not follow; sport is also very underdeveloped but I assume most people are happy with that title. While the public consciousness maintains the fallacy that the prose of good, in-depth Wikipedia articles is the work of many hands adding little bits, I have never found that to be true. When an article reaches a good standard it is because a handful of people (perhaps even just one or two) have researched and laboured to achieve the result. Wikipedia (for all its internet glory) is a very niche thing. SFB 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

@DuncanHill - The merge proposal does not "impose one variety of English over another," while the current naming system does. NCAA & North American use of "athletics" is in the broad sense. British use of "athletics" is for a much more narrow group of games. Again, WP guidelines support the merge proposal and connote that "we're doing it wrong." Why do you believe the way these pages are currently named is more efficient than the way WP suggests they should be? The guidelines exist to mitigate ambiguity, while the current page names only make these topics more ambiguous. I understand there are a lot of links, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the guidelines and instead make up our own naming system.

@Bkonrad - You describe these pages as "a mess." Therein implies your approval of some kind of remedy. These pages simply do not follow the guidelines for disambiguation. That is why they are a "mess."

@SFB - The link you provide above shows that USA Track & Field is the governing body for both track and for cross country. The purpose of the NCAA link is to exemplify how that huge organization uses "athletics" in the broad sense, as opposed to a more narrow one like the Oakland Athletics. Athletics (activity) is offensive to North Americans (me); we take athletics very seriously, and not merely as an "activity" like catching butterflies in a net. The WP disambiguation guideline states clearly that the general topic should take the name, and that the DAB should have (disambiguation) in the title. If the principle is to help folks navigate WP to find their information quickly, we are failing with these pages. When I first started looking around at Athletics (sport) and Athletic sports, I was completely confused. I created Athletics (overview) to quell my own confusion. Now we need to overhaul these pages to clean up the "mess." The links might make it a lot of work, but that should not stop us from doing this correctly. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. The term is ambiguous and disambiguation is required. The only question left is whether there is a primary topic. Athletics (overview) is entirely inadequate for that purpose at the present time. older ≠ wiser 21:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And respectfully, I agree that it is ambiguous, which necessitates FOLLOWING THE WP GUIDELINES. The NCAA link demonstrates with absolute clarity that Athletics (overview) is the primary topic. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sample of usage does nothing of the sort. older ≠ wiser 01:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "athletics" is used 22 times on that page. The NCAA governs multitudes of sports and games, not merely track and field. If you cannot comprehend the context and usage of "athletics" in that passage, perhaps you could get someone to read and explain it to you. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The word "athletics" is used hundreds of times in this link, and yet, I'm not sure you will comprehend its usage here either: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D111.pdf TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this specific passage from the NCAA manual will clarify "athletics" as the primary topic:

3.2.4.5 Application of Rules to All Recognized Varsity Sports.

To be recognized as a varsity sport, the following conditions must be met:

(b) The sport officially shall have been accorded varsity status by the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate athletics; (Revised: 3/8/06)

(c) The sport is administered by the department of intercollegiate athletics;

(d) The eligibility of student-athletes participating in the sport shall be reviewed and certified by a staff member designated by the institution’s president or chancellor or committee responsible for intercollegiate athletics policy;

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Condescending snotty remarks don't help make your case. The term as used by that single source (the NCAA) does not necessarily reflect worldwide usage and it is silly to try to make such an argument based on a single source. older ≠ wiser 13:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have already demonstrated worldwide usage. You choose not to see it, and ostensibly ignore the breadth of the world's largest athletic association, the NCAA. Seems worthy of ridicule to me. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but in all your verbose ramblings you have not clearly demonstrated that there is a primary topic for the ambiguous term. You have shown what is essentially a common dictionary definition usage of the term, not necessarily a distinct encyclopedic topic. older ≠ wiser 13:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have done just that, and you're the only one who doesn't "understand." TommyKirchhoff (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Based on the number of editors who don't agree with you (both here and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics (overview)), it looks like I'm not the only one. And it is not that I don't understand what you are saying, I simply do not agree that you have demonstrated that there is a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 13:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Try this link: http://www.mgoblue.com/

Right under "tickets," it reads "give to athletics." What do you think that means ? And please notice "NCAA Rules" right next to that. I like to infer "rules" as a verb. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove. You're showing common dictionary uses of a term, not that there is a single encyclopedic topic that is the primary topic. Athletics (overview) is certainly not that topic (at least at present). older ≠ wiser 14:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not surprised; but I have proved positive that "athletics" is used as a broad encyclopedic term that encompasses administration, politics, funding, training & coaching systems of collegiate, amateur and professional sports and games. It is in fact the primary topic, which is described in Athletics (overview)-- albeit spartanly because it is a new page-- and should take the name of this page according to the WP disambiguation guideline posted boldly above. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That a bit of putting the cart before the horse. I'd say first improve the article and then we can talk about whether it is the primary topic. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The guideline makes no mention of an article's "quality score" or "development quotient." This assurance would seem to be another rule "we're" making up on our own, much like the way "we" have decided to disambiguate "athletics," rather than following the WP guidelines for disambiguation. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. In order for Athletics (overview) to be the primary topic, there needs to be consensus among editors that the topic satisfies the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That consensus does not exist and I don't think it can exist while that article is so unsatisfactory in explaining the diverse meanings of the term. older ≠ wiser 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I think the point here is that, yes, the NCAA definition of athletics mirrors that of the American populace at large. That aspect was never in denial. The ambiguity of the word "athletics" emerges not from within America itself, but rather from virtually all English-speaking people outside of the country. The other third of the world's English-speaking people (who live outside of the US) pretty much all think of athletics (sport) when talking of "athletics", not athletics (overview) (I can provide examples if you wish). If one in three people is in disagreement, then I think that means there is significant ambiguity of the terms.

It is an indication of the widespread use of the term that the Athletics at the Summer Olympics is named so. All major international athletics championships refer to the track and field side of the division, not the general athletics side. While the American meaning carries significant valency in its domain, that power does not translate much beyond the borders – hence the need for a disambiguation at the main page. My reading of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case is that 2/3 is not enough to establish an obvious main topic.

As a side note, the other third is also supplemented by a not insignificant number of English-as-second-language-speakers who equate athletics in English with their own words relating to the IAAF meaning (be it Leichatletik/Athlétisme/Atletismo/Lekkoatletyka/Atletiek etc). There are many of them here. The disambiguation guidelines do not mention the place or worth of these speakers, but given that such people are not exempt from such discussions it would seem that they do (de facto) carry some weight as well (I'm not agreeing with this, but there has been no prior discussion of this aspect of English Wikipedia as far as I know). SFB 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, SFB. I think the tools recommended in the PrimaryTopic link can be very useful. They suggest using http://stats.grok.se/ which shows Athletics (sport) receiving traffic > 17000 in June 2011, and Athletics (overview) receiving traffic of >5000 in June 2011 (pretty amazing for a brand new page). I think traffic on the (overview) page is only going up exponentially; let's wait and see. What may be more important is that WP suggests searching Google with depersonalization in the search string. Results found here might show significant tipping of the scales toward the North American connotation being more globally searched with those results having more click-throughs and higher quality scores. The point I am still trying to make is not of semantics, but usage. Brits use "athletics" in a more narrow sense. Yankees use it in a more broad sense. At last, I will be patient in this discussion so that the usage of the term can sink in and make sense of itself in regards to the WP guidelines for disambiguation. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a depersonalizer tool. Please search "athletics" for yourself.

http://www.facesaerch.com/depersonalizer/

TommyKirchhoff (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The .com domain is the top-level domain for the US so it is not surprising that it reflects American usage. These are not the results that any English-speaker will find outside of that country. (Aside from the automatic google reference to the Oakland A's latest results) The Canadian google page offers a mixture of results, while every other English language variant reflects the other usage of athletics. The traffic for the new page is significant, but I'm unsure what exactly it represents – after two stable months of about 50 hits a day, there has been a direct correlation between increased traffic and the page's presence at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (one of the more active parts of Wikipedia). SFB 19:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Tommy that this disambiguation page should be retained. Athletics as an all-embracing term to mean sports is used only in American English and is confusing to the rest of the world. This is an international encyclopaedia not an American encyclopaedia. Dahliarose (talk) 00:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Because the rest of the world understands "athletic" with perfect clarity, it seems to me this is a British encyclopedia. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The medals table does not agree at all with the individual events results. Which one is wrong? --Ulixes 21:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC) What, in particular, doesn't fit? I've checked many of the Gold medalists and few other medalists in the men's track races against my set of results and they seem to fit. Tell me wht you think might be wrong and I will look it up further. Evil Eye 08:10, 12 August 2005 (UTC)