From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject icon Olympics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

 Welcome to the WikiProject Olympics talk page 

Discussion Alerts Assessment Manual of Style Peer review
Here you can discuss with other users about general questions and issues involving the project. Here you can be updated on important changes in the workflow status of articles tagged by this project. Here you can check the project ratings statistics, learn how to assess articles, or request us an assessment. Here you can follow the project guidelines to help you create, expand, and format articles. Here you can ask the project membership to perform a review on any of its tagged articles.
Olympic Games
Paris
121 days left
2024
Summer
Milan & Cortina
681 days left
2026
Winter
Los Angeles
1570 days left
2028
Summer
TBD
2140 days left
2030
Winter


Archives

To start a new discussion section, please click here

Grammar of lead sections

A quick glance at the lead sections of a few WP articles about Olympiads shows me they have a fairly standardised opening sentence. Examples:

  • The 2022 Winter Olympics, officially called the XXIV Olympic Winter Games ... were an international winter multi-sport event ...
  • The 1964 Summer Olympics ... officially the Games of the XVIII Olympiad ... and commonly known as Tokyo 1964 ... were an international multi-sport event ...

The "were an international multi-sport event" is grammatically dubious, is ugly, and makes me uncomfortable. "Event" is a singular noun, so "was an event" would be correct. Most dictionaries show "Olympics" as a plural noun, so we have a sentence saying a plural noun is a singular noun.

I don't have an easy solution to this except restructuring the opening sentence of every single article to read something like The Games of the XVIII Olympiad, commonly known as the 1964 Summer Olympics or Tokyo 1964, was an event ... I am not a member of this project, so (assuming this is the right forum) I'd thought I'd point it out and throw it to you guys to discuss and decide what, if anything, to do. Masato.harada ( talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for bringing this up. Also, thanks for some preliminary research: you indicate that "Olympics" is generally treated as plural (e.g. "the 2022 Winter Olympics were") but, of course, "event" is not (e.g. "was an international winter multi-sport event"). I personally think that where these clashes of prescriptive grammar occur, Wikipedia can have some lee-way to write as fits best (i.e. use "were" or "was" and not worry about which noun disagrees), there are other potential solutions. We could replace the word "event" with a word or phrase that fits and is plural, or rephrase how it is included. Kingsif ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Website canvassing for changes to Wikipedia article terminology

Hey, I just wanted to make members of this WikiProject aware of this website that's canvassing for changes to be made to terminology in sporting-related Wikipedia articles; so that editors are aware that this off-wiki canvassing is occurring. (Also notifying WT:SPORTS.) All the best, ‍—‍ a smart kitten[ meow 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a project of billionaire Peter Thiel's "Enhanced Games" enterprise. They want to ban the use of the word "doping" and change the word "cheated" to "fought for science and bodily sovereignty", among other things. Jeff in CA ( talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply
If they don't think doping is wrong, why do they think it's a dirty word? Anyway, if they get editors to come to WP in any numbers large enough to try and influence terminology, I'm sure it will be more than obvious to regulars and the blocking powers that be. Kingsif ( talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Already been tried years ago -- DB1729 talk 22:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply
"So far 115 world records have been shattered." Good sketch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Good article reassessment for Olympic Games ceremony

Olympic Games ceremony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 03:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Move of Equestrian to "Equestrian Events"

Hello, just cross posting this discussion [1]

Back in December based on a few events Equestrian was moved to Equestrian events. Per WP:COMMONNAME and what the IOC calls the sport, Equestrian should be used. I am reopening this discussion here. Please comment! Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 00:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Personally, I prefer " Equestrianism at the ... ". As you can see if you follow the link, there is actually an article with that exact name. "Equestrian" does not make any sense here; an equestrian is either the person riding the horse, i.e. the word is a noun – or it's an adjective, like in equestrian events. And "Equestrian events at the ... " is bad too. It's like "Football[ish] events at the ... ". There was not much participation in the previous RM. I suggest we go with "Equestrianism at the ... ". HandsomeFella ( talk) 07:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • The articles should be moved back to "Equestrian events..." per the consensus of the previous discussion, which cannot be unilaterally put aside and overruled. And notifications of this discussion need to be posted on the relevant pages. wjemather please leave a message... 16:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I mean, there were multiple other discussions that concluded with staying at "Equestrian at", but as soon as another discussion is opened, it's all fair game again. Don't pick and choose which discussions you think we should and shouldn't stick with in perpetuity. Kingsif ( talk) 17:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If a new consensus is reached through a new discussion, then the articles can be moved but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to unilaterally disregard and overrule the consensus of the most recent RM discussion. wjemather please leave a message... 23:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I don't see any IDLI, and if we look at that latest discussion, I don't actually know how it closed in favour of moving to "Equestrian events" given the lack of !votes for that outcome that actually had reasons at all, let alone good ones (grammar prescriptionists are the ones who just DLI). So that's reason enough to call it a malformed close, if you are looking for reasons to disregard it for some reason(?) Kingsif ( talk) 00:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If someone wishes to challenge the close, then they can do that, but this is not the appropriate venue. What nobody can do, is unilaterally disregard and overrule it, which is what has happened here, without even having the courtesy to contact the closer of the discussion, or any of its participants, to notify them of this one. wjemather please leave a message... 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Yes - I thought this was a discussion to talk about the most recent close, I now see it is apparently a malformed RfC or move request? Kingsif ( talk) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, "Equestrian" clearly should be used (treating it as the name of the Olympic sport/group of events - as the IOC and everyone who actually watches, instead of just comments on here, does - then it is both perfectly correct in English and fits our naming convention; there is no reason not to use it and every reason not to use anything else) and there have been many discussions that have come to that conclusion, but a handful of people who won't let go of nothing but their opinion that "it just sounds wrong" will keep moving individual articles, starting new move discussions, and being unpleasant in said discussions, until nobody has the mental energy to continue challenging them. Kingsif ( talk) 17:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • This is not an appropriate place to hold a discussion to overturn the result of a properly advertised RM. I've reverted the page moves for the time being. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Good article reassessment for Ryan Lochte

Ryan Lochte has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro ( talk) ( cont) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Abdalá Bucaram, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Matthew Dunn#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces ( talk) 07:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply