Talk:Athletics (track and field)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:

• A group of sports also known as track and field
• Sports in general
• The Oakland Athletics baseball team
• etc.

• 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)

[edit] 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)

• Would someone already up to speed be able to provide a brief explanation/reminder of how "athletics" and "track and field" may be interpreted differently?  I'd then feel more able to chip in. Thanks, David Kernow 17:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC) from WP:RFC/STYLE.
  • In American English, the word "athletics" virtually always means "sports in general." The use of the word "athletics" to mean "track and field" is all but unknown in American English. In British English, "athletics" and "track and field" are synonyms. -- Mwalcoff 23:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Mwalcoff. If there's general agreement over your summary, then I'd say move the current Athletics page to Track and field athletics Athletics (track and field) (beginning "Track and field athletics, known as "track and field", or, in Commonwealth English, athletics, Athletics, also known as track and field, is a..."), then make Athletics a disambiguation page thus:

    Athletics may refer to:

    • Track and field athletics Athletics (track and field)
    • Sports in general (American English use)

    Regards, David 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC), updated 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

    • I believe Mwalcoff has made a strong argument for this move and i would not object to him doing what he describes above. David D. (Talk) 14:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I appreciate your compliment, David D. Should we call this article "Track and field (athletics)"? -- Mwalcoff 15:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I think i would go with Track and field or Track and field athletics. For simplicity probably the first would make sense. The precedent would be Track and Field News rather than Track and Field Athletics News. I find the brackets messy and it would mean all wiki links have to be piped. David D. (Talk) 16:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
          • I concur, also on the grounds that a paranthesis following an article's title is usually reserved for disambiguation. Regards, David 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Thanks guys. I've edited the page to emphasize the new name, but moving the page will require an administrator, since there already is a page at Track and field (just a redirect to Athletics). I've listed it on WP:RM again to attract admin attention. -- Mwalcoff 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. We could follow the example of Football (soccer) and use Athletics (track and field). --Usgnus 18:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me; I've amended my suggestion above accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good to me too. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• I thought you just said you didn't like using parentheses? -- Mwalcoff 22:01, 19 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Survey

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

• Support per nom. David Kernow 22:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. See discussion -- Mwalcoff 23:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I'd prefer Track and field, Track and field athletics or Track and field (athletics), but I'll vote yes to help avoid a vote in favor of the status quo. -- Mwalcoff 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'd forgotten that in American English it means something different to International English. The argument IMHO is convincing and I am supporting it. Certainly track and field on its own is a non-starter. Most of the world doesn't use that term. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Jooler 07:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • A rationale would be useful too. David D. (Talk) 07:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok. Athletics is accepted International usage with for example the IOC ([3]), the IAAF (http://www.iaaf.org/)who organise the IAAF World Championships in Athletics and the IAAF World Athletics Final, and the International Athletics Foundation ([4]). Any change would have an unnecessary impact and debate on pages such as Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Jooler 11:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support, this open up the athletics page for the disambiguation page. it has the advantage of maintaining the athletics name as well as clarifying that it is referring to (track and field). It means rewrites of current pages that reference athletics are not required. David D. (Talk) 07:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose, as a) rather stretched title b) the issue of American usage did not convince me; looks like searching for "political correctness" where it wasn't really addressed. Duja 08:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose see alternative proposal. jnestorius^(talk) 09:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support, I prefer the Track and field athletics idea. JackLumber. 13:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support Will help the maximum number of readers and alienate the fewest. MAG1 20:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think there is nothing wrong with the current name of the article and my first preference is to keep that. I certainly 100% oppose Track and field and Track and field athletics as the nearest thing to an offical title for the events uses athletics and both either do away with that name or relegate it to second behinda regional name. I would however, if pushed really far, give a preference to Athletics (Track and field) over either of the other two suggestions for a move, but my primary vote would be with no change at all. Evil Eye 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Gosh, what a popular article! As far as the title goes, Athletics (track and field), or Athletics would suffice. I think the former would be better. Just "track and field" would not cut it since this is not a ubiquitous term worldwide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drdr1989 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 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)

• • Based on the comments, it looks like there are four votes for Athletics (track and field), three for Athletics, two for Track and field athletics and one for Track and field. That makes three votes for the status quo and seven for a change. -- Mwalcoff 00:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Please don't count my nomination as a "vote" for anything. My goal is to find a solution we can all live with, so that we don't go through this process every few months. This means I'll accept anything logical, including all 4 mentioned by Mwalcoff. --Usgnus 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I wasn't counting yours. But since you seem to be in favor of a change, we can say that the current tally is 8-3 in favor of some kind of a change. -- Mwalcoff 00:42, 26 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Option 1: Athletics

• Weak Oppose. jnestorius^(talk) 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. JackLumber. 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Duja 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral David D. (Talk) 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. – Axman (☏) 10:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - No need to change from IOC and IAAF usage. Jooler 11:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - no real need for a change. Evil Eye 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Oppose.. --Usgnus 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The description of the page is good, so I really don't see the need for re-naming. Prolog 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 2: Athletics (track and field)

• Weak support. prefer 3. jnestorius^(talk) 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I've changed slightly, on the basis that "athletics" is a slightly broader term, incorporating cross-country running and road-racing, neither of which is strictly "track and field"
• Weak oppose. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. David Kernow 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. JackLumber. 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Duja 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support David D. (Talk) 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. – Axman (☏) 10:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Jooler 11:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Evil Eye 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Support. --Usgnus 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prolog 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 3: Track and field athletics

• Support. jnestorius^(talk) 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support I now prefer 2: see comment there.
• Weak support. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. David Kernow 23:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. JackLumber. 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not-so-strong oppose. Duja 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support David D. (Talk) 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. – Axman (☏) 10:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Jooler 11:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Evil Eye 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Support. --Usgnus 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Prolog 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 4: Track and field

• Weak Oppose. jnestorius^(talk) 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -- Mwalcoff 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. JackLumber. 13:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Duja 13:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose despite what i wrote above i now realise this is not the best option. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. – Axman (☏) 10:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Jooler 11:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Evil Eye 16:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. --Usgnus 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Prolog 14:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.