This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Google Doodle/Wikipedia On this day mention, semi-protection/pending changes protection necessary?[edit]
The topic gets featured as today's Google Doodle and Wikipedia's On This day. Semiprotection/pending changes protection is a must hence its timing, nature, importance and is a featured article on Wikipedia. Ryan (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 6 external links on 1896 Summer Olympics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In the "Venues" section we're told that the fencing events were held "at the Zappeion" (which makes sense, since it is a building), but that the sport shooting events were held "at the Kallithea" (which doesn't, since Kallithea is simply a district of Athens). This should presumably be changed to "at Kallithea" (as later on in the article), so I've done so ("in Kallithea" would in fact be even better English). This error may be due to the fact that the Greek words for "in Kallithea" (στην Καλλιθέα) literally mean "in the Kallithea", which suggests that the article was written, unedited, by a native Greek-speaker.188.230.240.75 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph begins thus: "Thirteen nations and 280 athletes (all males) took part in the games..." Just five sentences further: "Ten of the 14 participating nations earned medals."
So was it thirteen nations or fourteen?!
I'm amazed we only had two different numbers. Might have been 10, might have been 12, might have been 13, might have been 14, might have been 15. I've changed the paragraph to conform to the IOC numbers, which we use in the infobox as well. The rest of the article does have discussion of the varying counts, in the participating nations section. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The summary paragraphs state that the only non-European team at the games was the Americans, yet later on the article mentions a singular Chilean athlete at the games. Is this an error or is it non technically a mistake because he was possibly there by himself. If the latter is true should the intro summary be changed to be more clear about the number of non-European athletes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allhutsincuba (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Chilean participation in 1896 is very controversial in Olympic history circles. Basically, Chilean historians insist a 13 year old competed in the 100m whilst the rest of the world admit he was entered into the race but find no proof he actually turned up to race. Topcardi (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: no consensus. There are valid arguments on both sides, but neither side is significantly stronger than the other, therefore, there is not a clear enough consensus to change the status quo. Given the multiple relists, it is unlikely a clear consensus would develop if this RM were left open for longer. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. There was no such thing as the "Summer Olympics" in these years. And "Winter Olympic" sports like figure skating and ice hockey were competed at these Olympics, so it is potentially confusing to use the misnomer of "Summer Olympics" for these games. And based on the Google Ngrams, "Year Olympics" is more common than "Year Summer Olympics" for all of these years. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the intention also to make the change on related nations and sports pages like "X at the 1896 Summer Olympics" to "X at the 1896 Olympics"? Nimrodbr (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think it is right to conduct the discussion on all its implications together and not by the salami method. Nimrodbr (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From an administrator's perspective (which is what I'm currently commenting from) if there is no opposition to the proposed "why don't we move them all" in this discussion, I would not see it as unreasonable to then move the relevant pages if there was unanimous (or close to it) support. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning to Oppose + comment I don't think the moves themselves should happen just on two support votes, as there's clearly a bigger impact on the related pages as well. There's a Featured Article in the mix (I thought there was others, but just the 1896 page), along with titles such as "Olympiska sommarspelen 1912", "Jeux olympiques d'été de 1920", etc, in the lead, and the title convention across all other language wikis. Looking at WP:TITLECHANGES it states - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". I guess it's fine tuning the nuance of "no good reason". However, if there is a good reason, AND there's a better volume of votes (either supporting or opposing), then go with that. Or maybe the solution would be to scrap this, and open an RfC to get a wider input? I'm not trying to bludgeon a/the process, but would like a bigger audience to contribute to this, so we don't get a day/week/month after a possibly contentious move being questioned further. I've already dropped a note at WT:OLY, but I'll bump it for more editors to have their say. LugnutsFire Walk with Me08:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For what it's worth, the IOC I believe prefers "1896 Athens Olympics" etc., but I don't think that that usage is common enough at present to justify using it on Wikipedia. Nomination makes good points, but WP:TITLECHANGES, as Lugnuts raises, is valid as well. Personally I think it would be weird to have most of the editions as summer/winter and then a few not, a view that is supported by WP:TITLECON and its preference for consistent titles; even though that is just one consideration according to the policy, it what tips it for me. CanadianPaul02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think WP:TITLECHANGES is an argument against the move, given most of WP:CRITERIA supports the move. I do, however, think that it supports the move, as it requires us not to use extremely uncommon names, and the name 1916 Summer Olympics is extremely uncommon, with the use of it too low to appear in ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, interesting discussion. I hadn't thought too much about it before but I am inclined to side in weak support with dropping the "summer" from the aforementioned titles as per BilledMammal's view, as it does seem erroneous when there is no corresponding winter games for those periods. At the time of those respective events, I am sure there would not have been any formal mention of the season when referring to them. The issue I guess is that to move these then means that all the respective "summer-season" Olympic articles do not have a consistent title. What tilts it for me is that there were winter events too held simultaneously at these events, so the "summer" is more around the "when" rather than the "what" until 1924 onwards. I don't see a big enough issue if we keep the current titles as redirects. Bungle(talk • contribs)17:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I see the argument, but I don't think this is really a case of WP:COMMONNAME. Take a look at 2020's ngram data, for which the naming is not in dispute, and the numbers look similar. I would feel differently if there was a factual inaccuracy in the titles, or if the current titles broke the style guide. However, considering they are merely overly elaborating, and reverting that elaboration requires prior knowledge from the user to know why the naming convention changes (not to mention the massive amount of movement required to meet "well, technically you don't need this much clarification in the title"), this is just not a move I can support. -fuzzy510 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this is approved, I wouldn't expect other editors to move those pages; I would do it myself. I don't think that is a good argument against moving. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The page movement isn't a primary argument against moving - if you could tell me that every article and link in the Wiki would be moved and unbroken, I would still oppose the move. -fuzzy510 (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To address the rest of your comment, the WP:COMMONNAME of 2020 Olympics is not relevant to this move request; the only question is whether the most common name for the 1900 Olympics is "1900 Summer Olympics" or "1900 Olympics", and the answer is clearly the latter. Google Scholar reinforces this, with 208 results for "1900 Olympics", compared to 61 results for "1900 Summer Olympics". Further, there is an inaccuracy here; these Olympics included Winter Olympics events, and were not "Summer Olympics" in the current meaning of the term. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Per WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:COMMONNAME. The current disambiguation with Summer is not required, as the Winter Olympics did not begin until 1924, and inaccurate, as the 1908 and 1920 Olympics included Winter events, and the cancelled 1916 Olympics would have included Winter events. The proposed title is also the COMMONNAME for these events, per ngrams: 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I do not think anything has really changed in the months since the previous RM just last year. Basically, the same OP just copied and pasted their same arguments, including the same Google Books links instead of adding substantial new sources. But I would still error on the side of WP:TITLECHANGES, where If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. And the previous problem that was raised: where shortening those titles would require prior knowledge from the reader to know why the naming convention changed prior to the start of theses separate Olympics. Instead we should still keep some WP:CONSIST across these articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The games happened over 100 years ago; not much is going to change but I think it is reasonable to reconsider it a year later and hopefully come to a consensus either way.
Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. There was no such thing as the "Summer Olympics" in these years. And "Winter Olympic" sports like figure skating and ice hockey were competed at these Olympics, so it is potentially confusing to use the misnomer of "Summer Olympics" for these games. And based on the Google Ngrams, "Year Olympics" is more common than "Year Summer Olympics" for all of these years. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as Zzyzx11. Nothing has changed in the months since the previous RM last year. There are still the same Google Books links instead of adding substantial new sources. WP:TITLECHANGES states, If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Shortening those titles would require prior knowledge from the reader to know why the naming convention changed. Keep WP:CONSIST across Olympics articles. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TITLECHANGES only applies to when "there is no good reason to change it", and so does not cover policy-based reasons like COMMONNAME. Avilich (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I hadn't seen last year's RM for some reason but I've read through the arguments. I can understand where some of the opposes are coming from. What leads me to land slightly on the support side is the inclusion of winter sports from 1908 onwards, so the "Summer" bit in the title is misleading and incorrect. It would be odd to just move those articles where winter sports were included and hence, if we change titles, then everything pre-1924 should change. Schwede6608:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done It is unclear what edit you want performed. Jason McHuff (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
