Talk:Sport of athletics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Undiscussed name change[edit]

I object to the name change. I'm not in full agreement with the existing situation, but the argument is this group of sports under the IAAF is known globally (outside of the USA and Canada) by the term Athletics. It has never been presented that this is limited just to Europe. Trackinfo (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The OED is the gold standard for definitions. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Edit: I should probably clarify: I linked to the OED entry in the edit summary for the move. They indicate this region. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The linked source does not contain any reference limiting or attributing this usage to Europe.Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
The OED states "chiefly N. Amer" for general sporting competitions as the definition and "spec. (orig. Brit.)." for the more specific definition. Given that I pruned the "North" from the former for brevity (expanding the scope), I felt it reasonable to expand the scope from British to European in the latter since it's still correct for a regional distinction. Nonetheless, I did simultaneously create redirects at Athletics (North American) and Athletics (British) when I moved these pages. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You are unilaterally trying to solve the same problem the version previous to your change had addressed. But your undiscussed solution, in using cryptic brevity introduces facts not in evidence, making it factually incorrect as a bonus. In short, there have been discussions before. You are not the only person to recognize there is a problem of multiple usages of the word. But your solution is not the answer. Trackinfo (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Cryptic brevity? IDK what that means. Last I checked, the countries in North and South America that have English as their official language are all confined to North America. Same for Europe and Britain (at the time the term was defined). Even so, if you actually care THAT MUCH, we can move the articles to Athletics (North American) and Athletics (British) instead. I explained the reason for the original move (inadequate article disambiguation) on your project page. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 06:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to start a renaming war. I suspect other people will chime in when they notice the primary article about our sport has been renamed. As I prefaced, I don't think the status quo is perfect, but its decidedly better than the inaccurate version just created. Trackinfo (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll rename the articles to the redirect terms then, though I'll need to wait for the talk pages to be deleted before those can move. Are you satisfied now? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm less opposed to the move of Athletics (North American), though it does pose issues for those in North America for whom athletics means Athletics (sport), which is actually the entirety of North America minus the US and some parts of English-speaking Canada (see Athletics Canada). I also still of the opinion that the other term would be better discussed Athleticism – which is broader (but mostly overlapping) and linguistically neutral. SFB 18:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


I figured my explanation at WT:Athletics made this clear, but I guess not; I came across this page from a piped link to athletics (sport) on the term athletics. The link was incorrectly directed to this article when the more general term was intended (the context was performance-enhancing drugs). When I arrived at this page, I was confused since it wasn't what I expected given the article's parenthetical disambiguation and that I'm familiar with American English (I expected an article on competitive sports in general). It wasn't readily apparent to me after looking at the athletics disambiguation page that athletics (U.S.) was the more general article that I was looking for while athletics (sport) was the more specific article reflecting a more British English usage. The reason why this was confusing to me should be readily apparent:
  • Athletics is defined in the context of sporting events regardless of the variant of English, so I expected athletics (U.S.) to be an article on athletics in the US as opposed to Athletics (American), i.e., the more common meaning of the term "Athletics" in American English.
  • If one or the other didn't exist as an article, "Athletics (sport)" would be an appropriate and precise disambiguation title for either Athletics (North American) or Athletics (British) article. Because both of those articles are in the context of sports, this is an ambiguous parenthetical disambiguation.
In a nutshell, regardless of whether or not anyone likes the new titles, the old titles literally can not be used as the alternative because "(U.S.)" and "(sports)" do not conform to MOS:PRECISIONMOS:DAB for being ambiguous parenthetical disambiguations for these two articles.
I'm perfectly open to an alternative solution to disambiguate these articles (e.g., merge them into 1 general topic article or use a new parenthetical disambiguation scheme). I chose the parenthetical language variant for disambiguation because the pages literally reflect different definitions of the term "Athletics" which happen to have distinct geographic localization (per OED); doing this is actually in accordance with the WP:TITLE#National varieties of English convention for page titles when using parenthetical disambiguation. Just for the record, I did read some of the former move discussions looked at the move logs for these pages beforehand; none of this is relevant to this discussion because this disambiguation convention wasn't considered, so I don't know why it's worth bringing up. It also doesn't concern me that some people take issue with me being WP:BOLD and moving these articles to less ambiguous titles; it was broken and needed to be fixed. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. Perhaps an unsatisfying conclusion for a good discussion, but two things seem clear here: (1) the current title is awkward, with an unusual disambiguator; and (2) the proposed title is weighted with significant problems of its own. Fortunately, there are two main ways forward here: (1) move to something else; or (2) cut the Gordian Knot and merge the articles. Neither of these should be done without consensus, of course, but I'm optimistic at the prospects of finding a consensus solution. --BDD (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Athletics (British)Athletics (sport) – My request to move the article back to the title that was previously agreed by consensus was reverted by the person who moved it. If you look at the archives, we can see a variation of the current title (that was moved without discussion) was already rejected on the basis that I explained above. I'm happy to discuss other possibilities apart from the previous title, but I think the British one is inherently problematic on several fronts, most notably that it effectively excludes non-British varieties of English that use the term (which, population-wise, actually outnumber the British ones). SFB 20:39, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Seppi's source for the change (OED) does not even support his interpretation:
"spec. (orig. Brit.). Track and field events, including running races and various contests in jumping and throwing; the practice or sport of competing in these. " (emphasis mine). SFB 20:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
It would be a bit more constructive if we discuss how to address the disambiguation issue and your concerns rather than just ignore that there's a problem. In any event, I obviously oppose this per #my reply above. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to make one comment: your statement that "it effectively excludes non-British varieties of English" isn't correct. The North American vs British distinction neither includes nor excludes other varieties of English in relation to these pages. The only thing you can infer from Athletics (North American) and Athletics (British) is that the article scope for each page is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC usage for "athletics" in the associated parenthetical disambiguation region. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 21:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
  • @Seppi333: I've been bold and moved Athletics (North American) to Athletics (physical culture) because a disambiguation handle should describe the given concept per guidelines at WP:NCDAB (as mentioned by User:Red Slash). Athletics is not a class of North American, nor is North American its subject area. The new handle describes the given topic and explicitly delineates it from IAAF-style athletics, which solves one of our problems. SFB 23:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I second SFB's request for a move back to Athletics (sport). It is the best compromise proposed so far, as decided in previous discussions. Perhaps as an additional suggestion, the "North American" disambiguation might be better solved without the localization. Perhaps it could be named Athletics (generalization). Trackinfo (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Trackinfo and Seppi333: I don't think that's a very helpful disambiguator when out of the article context. Maybe Athletics (physical culture) would be more helpful? Certainly that's useful in that it covers the whole training/playing/competing complex of the topic. I agree that localisation isn't the best choice, not least because something like Athletics (North America) is so easily misconstrued as "Athletics in North America" or as something specifically North American. The more international we can make that article the better. For example, the ideas covered in physical culture are completely missing from it. This is really crucial information as it shows the development of Western sports culture in the industrial age – certainly the decision to focus so much on competition over demonstration (like in the Turnverein) has profoundly affected the way sport is understood globally. SFB 00:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose all sports are "athletics", so "athletics (sport)" has some ambiguity, as it could refer to any sport with athletes (sportspeople). Indeed university athletics departments cover all sports, such as football, baseball, basketball, hockey. Suggest instead Athletics (track and field) or Track and field (athletics) since this is just what is referred to colloquially as "track and field" -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
    • While the "(track and field)" parenthetical has the upside of making the subject more obvious to North American readers, it has the obvious drawback in that we are defining a larger concept by only one of its parts (e.g. North America (United States). The previous use of this title+handle led to frequent move requests and content edit wars about including non-track and field topics on an article that some (wrongly) assumed should have been covering just track and field. The difference now is that we have a fully-fledged track and field article, but inevitably this is confusing for North American readers who—now assuming that athletics (track and field)=track and field—periodically start merge discussions. We've been at this point before and it wasted a lot of time. It is not coincidental at all that the division of these articles happened at the same time as the great increase in the quality of their coverage. SFB 23:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment is there a way to work article content to facilitate the moves:
Athletics (British)Athletics and optionally
Athletics (North American)Athletics in North America
Team GB are just one of the groups that partake in events such as the Summer Olympics and the current disambiguation seems very problematic and even partisan to me. For example www.britishathletics.org.uk/ is "the official homepage of Athletics in the UK."
A simple article on "Athletics" could be made which would be able to summarise local variants in usage in NA. GregKaye 06:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, given that parts, if not most, of the North American term can be considered sports. Ambiguous disambiguators in article titles are not helpful to readers. Steel1943 (talk) 07:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we shall have Athletics (British) and Athletics (North American) we should maybe have Athletics (British English) and Athletics (US English) to emphasize that we have variations in language and meaning, not that Athletics is differently performed in US and UK, or that the UK is the main country for track and field.--BIL (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

For clarification: The sports revolving around what Americans call track and field, but also including road running, cross country running, race walking and mountain trail running are referred to globally as the sport of Athletics. This group of sports is governed by the International Association of Athletics Federations. In the official literature of the Olympics, the sport is referred to as Athletics, not track and field. And if you watch American TV coverage of the sport, you might also be very surprised that all of the measurements are done metric, so the reports you see in feet and inches have been sanitized for your protection. If you approach this discussion with all of your previous experience coming from a a limited American perspective, your experience will tell you Athletics is a generalized term covering all sports or activities. Schools in the United States have Departments of Athletics, and Athletic Directors supervising an entire program of sports. This is our dilemma to disambiguate. Wikipedia is a worldwide source of information. 300 plus million Americans might dominate the English speaking world, but are easily a minority vs the other 6 billion plus people around the world. While the governing body is United States Track and Field (USATF), in France it is Fédération française d'athlétisme, in Spain Real Federación Española de Atletismo, in Russia it is translated to All-Russia Athletic Federation, India is Athletics Federation of India and China's 中国田径协会 translates to the Chinese Athletic Association as some examples. This goes well beyond British english. Trackinfo (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Strong support - the current title is ridiculous! Athletics is a sport--yes, it's a British name, but come on! We never ever ever ever disambiguate this way! Red Slash 01:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit. There's no policy anywhere on WP that supports what you just said. Pages can/should be disambiguated in any way that disambiguates all articles with the same title, with greater precision being preferential. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That's not even remotely true. See WP:NCDAB, which is policy. Red Slash 22:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is ridiculous, yes, but the proposed move is not an improvement. The American meaning of "athletics" refers to activity that can also be a sport. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

 Note: Given that there doesn't seem to be any agreement on how to disambiguate these articles parenthetically in an unambiguous and uncontroversial manner, article naming policy indicates the use of a WP:Broad concept article in this case. Football is actually a good example of such an article. This solution would entail merging athletics (North American), athletics (British), college athletics, and Track and field (the latter two are entries at athletics) into a single article at the athletics page, where the current athletics page would be moved to athletics (disambiguation) – the remaining disambiguation entries would just be athletics organizations. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That is not the solution found at football, as association football, American football, rugby football etc all still exist – they haven't been merged to football. Moreover, football describes a broad range of ball games; athletics can mean either a specific sport governed by the IAAF or an overarching concept of human athletic activity. One can compare, contrast and analyse common roots of distinct codes of football. This kind of relationship doesn't exist between the two athletics concepts (one of which incorporates the other) so they are unreconcilable. Trying to do so was actually the primary reason why the two athletics topics (plus track and field!) had only confusing and poor coverage as a grouped topic until 2010, and this was the primary driver for the division of the distinct concepts. A broad concept article does not suit Athletics as it emphatically does not have (to quote the guideline) "an unambiguous meaning that can be discerned from the relationship between the listed topics".
Perhaps we could build an article covering the meaning of athletics as a word (like Football (word)), as that is probably helpful and warranted. Still, that is yet another article for the disambiguation page. I endorse having separate articles for the concepts – and track and field as well, given the further potential confusion around treatment of many non-track and field topics on a track and field article (another problem of the 2010 arrangement). SFB 23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair point about the child articles. Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, the subarticles should still exist and be linked from the main article. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • What a horrible mess. But oppose the proposed move.. As far as I can gather, the term "Athletics" in the UK and maybe elsewhere means the same thing as "Track and field" in North America. I.e. including marathons, road races, and maybe cross country. Whereas "track and field" isn't really a much used term in the UK. Hence this article and Track and field should be merged really. As for where they reside, I think it should probably be at plain vanilla Athletics. This is a precise term and the most commonly used for this. It is also the term used by the IOC: [1]. Athletics (physical culture) is a more oblique term, and probably that content should be merged into a more general article about sports, which woudl allow a simple hatnote from Athletics to wherever that would be. I don't want to turn this into an WP:ENGVAR dispute though, I just don't know the level of attachment North American readers have to an article about "athletics" to know if this is the primary topic. Anyway, as others have pointed out, "Athletics (sports)" is clearly not a good disambiguator, so if this isn't moved to Athletics, then an alternative needs to be found.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Change it: The present title of this article, "Athletics (British)", is ridiculous and must be changed. The title of the sister article, "Athletics (physical culture)" (which is actually referred to as "Athletics (North American)" at the top of this article) is also quite poor. 109.153.236.250 (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
(Addition) Yikes. I see now that there is a separate article "Track and Field". This is bonkers. "Track and Field" is just the American term for what the rest of the world calls "Athletics" (or near equivalent in local language). I agree with the poster above that this is all a horrible mess. There should be one article called "Athletics" for the sport that is internationally referred to by that name, with a note at the start "known as Track and Field in ths US" or whatever wording is agreed. 109.153.236.250 (talk) 15:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Track and field is just one aspect of athletics. Having an article on specifically track and field is only as bonkers as having separate articles for cross country running, racewalking or road running. They are all parts of athletics, a much broader concept of footracing and measured jumping and throwing sports of all varieties. Simply reading the two articles makes this clear enough. SFB 15:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you do have a point. I'm afraid that my comment on that point was written without due consideration. However I still stand by my opinion that "Athletics (British)" is a ridiculous name for this article. 109.153.245.28 (talk) 02:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternatives to Athletics (sport)[edit]

I think the prime limitation of the "(sport)" handle is that is doesn't delineate it from the Athletics (physical culture) concept. I think it is a good idea to stick with a disambiguation handle that describes the concept, rather than one which describes the word that describes the concept (i.e. "British English"). Here's some alternatives (old and new):

The more I think about it, the more the first option seems like it has the fewest potential issues both in terms of disambiguation (no North American would define Athletics (physical culture) as a sport in itself) and in limitations of defined scope (all the other parentheticals exclude something, be it walking/non-IAAF or Olympic forms/all non-track-and-field forms, etc.). SFB 23:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I support all of the these options. They all adequately disambiguate the concept. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Athletics (physical culture) is a very good choice for the NorthAm article disambiguation ; "sport of athletics" sounds good to me. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Question In American English are the words "sport" and "athletics" perfect and complete synonyms? If there is any clear difference between them that is what we must use to disambiguate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
@Dodger67: Sport implies competition, an agreed ruleset etc. Athletics covers sports of an athletic nature, but also includes their physical practice, methods of training, and systems of athletic movement (exercise); its focus on the athletic means some sports fall outside of the definition, particularly things like cue sports, animal sports, motorsports and especially electronic sports. Our difficulty is in encapsulating both these distinctions into two words or fewer :p SFB 20:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: wikt:athletics gives two meanings, but doesn't relate them to national varieties or provide any examples or references. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: The title of this article should simply be "Athletics" since that word, and very similar cognate words in other languages, is the one used internationally for the sports described here. It is the anomalous domestic US usage that needs qualification/explanation. 109.153.236.250 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Support this, and the comment above that it's currently a mess. I note that athletics (olympic sport) currently [2] redirects here, while athletics undisambiguated is currently [3] a disambiguation page. This article should become a broad concept article at athletics, largely but not exclusively on the sport that is the more specific meaning of athletics in English in all other countries, both English-speaking and other. There should be a hatnote to athletics (disambiguation), and a section on the olympic sport with a main link to a separate article at athletics (olympic sport), and another on the US usage, and I'm not quite sure what to call that other section and article, but US-based contributors should advise on that. Andrewa (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
@Andrewa: How do you propose we write a broad concept article on athletics? Surely this can only end up the same as Athletics (physical culture) but with a token segment on etymology around the sport of athletics? What purpose would this article serve and in what context would one choose to link to it and not one of the two articles we currently have? SFB 21:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it needs to be far shorter than the current [4] Athletics (physical culture) article, and not US-centric but dealing with both meanings, if anything biased towards the more usual meaning worldwide. One would link to it whenever creating any naive, unqualified link to athletics, that's one good reason for having it at the undisambiguated name (the other being to facilitate similarly naive searches). It would serve to give people doing these searches and following these links the information they want, many of them in the article itself, all the rest by giving them the information they need to then quickly decide which detailed article they need. Now answering your first question last, I propose that the article should be written to achieve this. Andrewa (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
@Andrewa: So something more like athletics (word), similar to how I suggested above (like football (word))? SFB 20:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think so... the meanings are consistent enough to have an article covering all forms of athletics at a high level, in my opinion. There may be enough material for an article on the word too, but barely, and that's not the issue here. Andrewa (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'm happy to provide assistance on that idea should you want to make a start on it after this move has been settled. SFB 20:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Support decision for editors to merge the contents which I think will greatly beneficial. Britannica only has one article on Atheletics. GregKaye 12:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
@GregKaye: FYI This is a vastly different solution to Britannica's. That encyclopaedia's athletics article is in the sport of athletics, and the physical culture idea is simply not covered at all. Andrewa is advocating having a general article covering topics that the word "athletics" describes in different cultures as well as separate articles for both the sport of athletics and athletics (physical culture). SFB 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Sillyfolkboy I certainly think that a a main Athletics (sport) article would be an advantage if possible. Is there a way sub articles could be named? GregKaye 04:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 close is wrong. There is no consensus for the move away from Athletics (sport) that started this whole controversy. It should be returned to the title where it was for years without complaint. Athletics (British) is wrong on so many levels (as shown by the discussion) that it is simply unacceptable to leave it at this title, it must go back to the way it was before the initial undiscussed controversial move. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Naturally, I'm tempted to agree. There is literally no support for the current title. I do think there is some support in the discussion of an outcome where we have athletics as a broad concept article leading into sport of athletics, athletics (physical culture) and college athletics, though as the nominator states that may be a tricky solution to balance (and one which requires considerate article work and diligent article link monitoring. SFB 00:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also in agreement. Trackinfo (talk) 05:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Move to sport of athletics[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2015 (UTC)



Athletics (British)Sport of athletics – Following the lack of consensus above on the broader issue of the multiple meanings and pages for the concepts named athletics, I propose a narrower interim solution to move this article to sport of athletics, which appeared to get multiple supports and no criticism in the above conversation. My main arguments for would be (a) it's an improvement on Athletics (British) (which garnered only opposition above), (b) it is plain-terms descriptive of the subject and avoids handles which may limit the actual interpretation of the phrase, (c) it leaves open the option to build a broad-based article at athletics (covering all possible interpretations of that word), and finally (d) it is a phrasing that entirely disambiguates from the athletics (physical culture) idea (which the former athletics (sport) did not). SFB 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Why not. Awkward, but this whole discussion has had nothing but awkward titles. I like it. Red Slash 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
    • SFB, do you want to make this a formal move request? Or does an admin want to just up and move it? Red Slash 21:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
      • @BDD: Would you be willing to move this article on the basis of this section's support? Of the three move discussion participants who haven't contributed here, only Seppi333 has no expressed a positive opinion about this title. SFB 11:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
No. No, I'm sorry, but this sounds really awkward, even though the current title does too. I'm not even going to vote if you want to make a new RM, but I won't do this. And given that the title of this article has been contentious in the past, I'd strongly recommend not moving at all without at least a one-week RM. --BDD (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
@BDD: Okey doke. I've opened this a new, narrower RM. SFB 16:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Its a much preferable alternative to what we have now. Trackinfo (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: What we know as Swimming is called Swimming (sport)‎ on wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - yes please, it's infinitely better than the current title! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. Just plain Athletics would be the best title, but this is certainly a big improvement on the current one.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as above GregKaye 21:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as an improvement on the current title. The "American" meaning can refer to sports culture, but not to a single sport; in any case the hatnote will remain. If someone comes up with an even better title, I would likely support that too, but in any case the current title is the worst of all possible alternatives. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per the last discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. Awkward, but less awkward than Athletics (British)! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Sport of athletics. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sport of athletics. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Request to update wiki page of an athlete[edit]

I have come across a wiki page of an athlete, Siddhanth Thingalaya who happen to be a good friend of mine. But his wiki page is missing lots of information about his latest achievements. Can anyone help me update his wiki page?

Kiran247 (talk) 11:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Incoming link changes[edit]

I have made a proposal to fix incoming links to this article here. Please add your thoughts. SFB 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)