Talk:Sports timeline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sports icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Sports and games Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Sports To-do:

I've noticed that each year now has a link to 'XXXX in sports'. As a British English speaker it grates, and just looks wrong. Most of the rest of the world would refer to 'sport' rather than 'sports' in this context. Would 'XXXX in sport' be any less acceptable to American English speakers? Mintguy

It works for me. But then again, Wikipedia has so brainwashed me that I now spell meter metre and spelled spelt. ;-) --mav


They mean different things. "Sport" is the singular (baseball is a team sport); "sports" is the plural (cricket and baseball are my favourite sports); "sport" is the generic singular: (on Saturdays, many people play sport). "Sports" is used to indicate a particular number, even when the exact number is not known or not stated (the French people play many different sports); "sport" is used to indicate the generic activity (the French people play a lot of sport) - notice that this example says that they spend a lot of time playing sport, where the French people play a lot of sports indicates that they play many different ones, perhaps baseball, rugby, golf, & so on. Unless the intention is to indicate a variety of different sports, rather than sporting activity in general, "year XXXX in sports" is (to the best of my knowledge) not variant usage, it's simply illiterate.
It's not illiterate it's simply American usage. Would you say History of Film or History of Films? Mintguy
A subtle distinction is possible, but I would tend to accept either as correct in the general case. In this topic we would also tend to use movies only in the plural, and cinema only in the singular. Eclecticology 20:06 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Mintguy. "It's simply illiterate" is sometimes fighting talk wrt differences of language usage, and perhaps better avoided. :) Nevilley 11:11 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Would you write "Year XXXX in works" about employment? Or "Year XXXX in loves" about romance? Tannin 10:51 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
This is a silly argument. Year in Sports is correct usage for Americans, and Year in Sport would sound silly. Vice Versa for the British side. This is one situation in which there's no "right answer" and appeals to grammatic correctness won't help. Dachshund
Very simple solution. Take the 's' off the end of "sports", carry it across and stick it on the end of "math". :-) And mav.... do you have cravings for upward of a dozen cups of tea a day? Are you complaining about the weather? Are you convinced cricket is dead? ;-) are you turning English on us, mav? ;-) -- Tarquin 19:27 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
I think you may be on to someting there. ;) --mav
How about this: Since a long time ago a Brit was the first to create an article on sports he called it sport. Therefore it can be said that we have standardized on sport for page titles about sports. But Americans link to that article via [[sport]]s. So why don't we have the articles at [[XXXX in sport]] (to satisfy everyone outside the US) but within each of the year articles we link to the year in sport articles via [[XXX in sport]]s (to satisfy the Americans). What say you? --mav 20:45 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
What about something neutral like. "Sporting events of XXXX" or similar. I'm not entirely happy with that particular sugestion, but maybe someone can think of something similar. Mintguy

I'm attempting to format "years in sport". If anyone wants to look at 2003 in sports to see what I have done and suggest changes and improvements, please do. I'll wait a few days until there is an acceptable Template, then I'll start copying the format and setting up each of the past 100 years or so. Jacques Delson

Perhaps Wikify the sport names? --Menchi 03:22 May 4, 2003 (UTC)
I'd say leaving out the sports names that have no events under them. My reasoning is this: There are dozens and dozens of different sports. So they should only be in the article if they are pertinent. Otherwise, you need to add Road cycling, Gymnastics, Weightlifting, Tennis, Figure skating, Alpine skiing, Cricket, Diving, etc. etc. There are just too many to list. So, consider only listing the ones that have an event to list. Kingturtle 03:51 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Can't believe I forgot tennis! Will add it, but the smaller sports like weightlifing etc can be in the General category. I'll set up a sample on the 2003 in sports page. Jacques Delson

I switched to the 2002 in sports page to do the setup for a template. This page could get very large unless discretion and good judgment is used but at the same time I did not want to leave any country or major event out but I'm sure I have. Please check it out before I start setting up the last 100 years. Once done, there will be much work needed to get each year up to snuff. Big job, just doing 2002 was exhausting. Volunteers? Jacques Delson

Just one note: "Football (American)" should probably point to American football rather than the NFL just to be more general. -- Minesweeper 06:31 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Very impression and comprehensive work, Jacques! Nice job. I'm certain that after you've created a few pages, WP will attract more vivid sports fan and sportsmen and the chronicle process will be faster. But now, you're a pioneer!
Are the individual events under each sport section listed in order of importance? If not, try list the feats of the same person together. Like under Golf, the three feats of Tiger Woods could be next to each other. --Menchi 18:04 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't put Tiger Woods all together because that becomes really hard work. I'm lazy, want a master template to copy and paste then beside each annual event type the winner's name. This is such a huge job I really don't think I can handle more than that. If someone else has some ideas, that would be helpful. I'll leave it a few more days so people can make changes before I start. Jacques Delson

above from village pump

Suggestion: prior to 1950, do it by decade: IE, 1940s in sports. Obviously sports fanatics have a more informed opinion, but I think the mass, world events of sport with mass audiences were slightly rarer back then. I won't do it myself - just raising the possibility. Martin 20:59 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Suggestion: in the index, Rugby Union should be given the same style as Soccer and American, i.e., Football (Rugby Union). User:Moriori 20.07 October 30 2003 (UTC)

Comment: The choice of events seems very US-centric. I'm fairly familiar with American sports for a European, but I have no idea what half of these mean. Zocky 06:47, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Unofficial Boat Race

Since not a lot else was happening in sport in 1944 for obvious reasons, I've added the unofficial Oxford Cambridge Boat Race of 1944. Sources - BBC, 60th year reenactment. Average Earthman 12:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shelley Taylor-Smith

What about her?? --Nitsansh 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mistaken entries deleted

The entries for 1908 and 1890 were incorrect, so I deleted them. --Nitsansh 21:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This is so American biased it's unbelievable... there needs to be more mentions of events that take place outside the USA or ar important for foreigners, in particular football: no mention of Real Madrid, Calcio or Brazil... In athletics for wxample we see Mary Decker but no mention of Sergei Bubka (50 world records!) or so many African runners. What about handball and other sports that are not popular in the USA but are popular in other countries? What about European basketball???? Pete Rose banned from baseball? Who's he? Is that a world event? (Stpaul 10:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC))

PELE???????
Sergei Bubka set 50 world records over his career, not all in one year. I've removed the Iditarod winner (I know what it is, but I suspect the average person doesn't, and wouldn't know the winner from a hole in the ground) and replaced it with Bubka breaking the 6 metre barrier. I certainly don't think we should have more than three events on any one year, one is preferable. Average Earthman 11:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Pele - retired in 1977. But still a US event as the last game was in New York... Average Earthman 11:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all that Earthman, but this is ridiculous. I like American sports on a fairly superficial level, but the truth is that apart from Michael Jordan most of the players are unknown throughout the world. The superbowl gets only a couple of million viewers outside the US. As for the retirement of Lou Gehrig (?), here in Bulgaria they still lay flowers at his statue, as loved as he is in Eastern Europe.
Sorry, but drunk as i am, what's the "fishermans trophy'

Nevertheless JACQUES, great work man

At a guess, I'd say a race for working schooners established by the Halifax Herald newspaper in 1920. Average Earthman 08:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Does that qualify as a world event then?? Dragonboat racing, one of the world's most popular sports and definitely the most popular nautical sport doesn't receive a mention (Stpaul 09:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC))
Sorry, I don't believe Dragon Boat racing is globally that popular. Lots of sports say things like that, and frankly they're lying. Dragon Boat racing may have a cultural significance in China, that doesn't make it one of the world's most popular sports, any more than the popularity of the Superbowl in the US makes American Football a global sport. Average Earthman 07:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Then why not remove mentions of American Football, as it's a regional sport at best? (Stpaul 08:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC))
I would think there should be fairly equal coverage of baseball, basketball, football (soccer), American football and ice hockey (and probably cricket, at least in earlier years), with reasonable (but somewhat lesser) coverage of the wide variety of other sports. Adding items in neglected areas would be preferable to deleting items from sports which one might believe are over-emphasized here. Deleting American football, particularly in the English language Wikipedia, seems counterproductive. It makes sense that the English version of this page would focus more heavily on sports popular in the English-speaking world. MisfitToys 22:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Given that cricket is the most popular sport in the "English-speaking world" then surely it should have more coverage. Further, the point of Wikipedia is NPOV. Covering events that are just important for the US is the problem, it's biased. (Stpaul 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC))

selected from above:
Now qualifying for inclusion "Bubka breaking the 6 metre barrier. I certainly dont think we should have more than three events on any one year, one is preferable." --Earthman

I should admit I don't know the general purpose of timelines or "years" before someone else says it. --P64

Thanks for all that Earthman, but this is ridiculous. I like American sports on a fairly superficial level, but the truth is that apart from Michael Jordan most of the players are unknown throughout the world. --anon.

Shaqui-i-ille O'Ne-e-eal! (mimicking the cry of a 20-year old Russian soldier/guard in St Petersburg twelve years ago). I traveled to Helsinki and St Petersburg with four new t-shirts in two sizes: Michael Jordan, Seattle Supersonics, two Shaquille O'Neal. Shaquille was most gratefully received, not only by the soldier but an academic in Helsinki, from St Petersburg, chose child-size Shaquille for his daughter.
(It's late so I have no judgment. Sorry to waste your time.) --P64 04:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bias before 1850?

Pre-1850s there certainly could be more cricket listings (I added a few), and more football listings, but the most valuable contributions will probably come from people who are not enthusiasts for any modern team sport (where I include rowing, dragonboat style and otherwise). Boxing, horse racing/jumping, fencing/dueling, shooting? And other games, events, contests. Blood sport (eg, bullfight)? Non-competitive sport?

Pre-1850s the selection is more Anglo than American (was mainly Anglo before this weekend) but people who are not Anglo-American need to work on it in order to reduce the joint Anglo-Amer bias. Even many of the highlights in history of sport, for spectators (if any?), participants, and historians must be unmentioned on the web in any language. For example, Germans may need to check some printed books in German. (I did cite a German phys.ed. text of 1796 for its coverage of English base-ball but I haven't read the German and I don't know whether the book is strictly rules/instruction or includes some news/history of its day.) --P64 04:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-1850s sports

I am going to merge the articles listed under the Pre-1850s list into one article. Considering that all of the articles mentioned pre-1850 are stubs and relatively short, one good article makes more since than many stubs. Moe ε 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a good move, I'm sure. I added several entries, especially baseball (admitting that some may belong in a baseball timeline only), but also some cricket (asking some questions there), and even two rowing (making the former ANGLO-american bias is a little more Anglo-American). When it is ripe for split into 1840s and Pre-1840s, I'm sure there will be volunteers.
(I corrected your English in this talk section because the article title is "Pre-1850s", a good enough reason to change a section heading or not?) --P64 04:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed category deletion

I note that it has been proposed that categories for all future sports years be deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16, and thought people following this timeline would have an interest. A Musing (formerly Sam) 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)