Talk:1896 Summer Olympics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

For whatever reason, yeah, they rank them according to number of gold medals primarily; I don't know what's next most important for those with the same number of gold, but to stay consistent, U.S. is still going to have to come before Greece. -- John Owens 10:17 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

In spite of the note from 'Average Earthman' below the coverage that I have seen in the U.S. and Canada, be it paper, tv or radio, from 1968 to today have total medal count as the primary ranking criteria. I can't speak to how other countries do this, or how it was done farther back, but the way the medal count table is set up now is a bit confusing. However, having perused all the summer olympic articles I see that wiki is consistent in doing this so I am not proposing that it be changed. I'll simply leave this minor grievance here for others to see and agree or disagree with. MarnetteD | Talk 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How did Australia participate? We weren't a nation until 1901. - Mitch Edgeworth, Perth

Participation in the first couple of games wasn't by nation, hence there were no national Olympic Committees to select teams. So you didn't have one unified British Empire team. Average Earthman 12:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

very nice http://alltechinfoonline.blogspot.com/

Medal count

I have seen medal scores allocated on the basis of either:

• total medals

or

• gold=3, bronze=2, silver=1.

Those two measures seem more reasonable to me than simply ignoring silver and bronze medals.

In any case, medal rankings that ignore population size simply weights the rank towards large countries. For example, Switzerland is at the bottom of the list, but it has 1/40 th of the population of the United States. It actually got 5 times the medals per citizen.
Bobblewik 10:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The medal ranking used here is the convention, as used by the IOC and various major media organisations worldwide. Average Earthman 12:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Per my note above, I would be interested to see any paper or TV listing that you can direct me to that lists by gold medal first. Please don't get me wrong, I'm not being cranky. I just have never seen it that way and would like to add to my knowledge. As to the current IOC website, yes their summary list is headed by most gold medals won, but it is important to note that they DO NOT have a total medals won column (I think they are trying to keep us up on our addition so that we don't forget how to do it). MarnetteD | Talk 23:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

There are a couple of medal count inconsistencies between the tally on this page, and the tally at [1] (see the "Medals by country" link on that page)

• Wikipedia:
  • Greece 10 / 18 / 17
  • Mixed team 1 / 0 / 0

• Olympic.org:
  • Greece 10 / 17 / 19
  • Mixed team 1 / 1 / 1

I know the mixed team issue generates some anomalies, but I'm tempted just to align all figures with the IOC site. -- Chuq 03:02, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

For anyone curious as to how the medals tables got to be the way they are here, the Olympic.org site includes the results of Dionysios Kasdaglis in "Greece" for the listing of Greek results but the Egypt/Greece pairing of Kasdaglis/Petrokokkinos as "Mixed Team". I have no idea why they do that. The current WP table lists 10/16 (17)/19 for Greece - this excludes Kasdaglis's results except for the paranthetical listing (for the silver medal in doubles tennis), which is there by merit of Petrokokkinos. If Kasdaglis is counted as Greek, the Greek results would be 10/18/19 and mixed team would be 1/0/1. -- Jonel | Speak 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The games had 43 events, but only 42 medals were awared due to the table. What is about the medal that was won by Ireland and Germany? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.225.89.137 (talk • contribs).

Our convention is to list the top 10 nations in a partial table on these articles, but link to the page with the full table (1896 Summer Olympics medal count, in this case). For these Games, there are only 11 entries on the full table, so perhaps we should just put in the missing row, namely the medals won by Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics, which includes your missing medal won by a tennis doubles team from GBR (as IRL did not have an independent Olympic team yet) and GER. Andrwsc 14:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's too confusing with that small a number of competing NOCs. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  17:24, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

anniversary of the outbreak of the war for Greek independence?

In the Opening ceremony section it reads:

On 6 April, 2008, the Games of the First Olympiad were officially opened. It was Easter Monday for both the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic and Protestant churches, and was the anniversary of the outbreak of the war for Greek independence.

What war for Greek independence was that? I was about to wikilink it to Greek War of Independence, but I can't find that date mentioned there. Is this maybe some Gregorian/julian calender thing, or is there maybe another war of independence that this date was an anniversary for? Shanes 22:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a calender thing. Read about it in note 3. ;-) Shanes 21:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Austrlalian Medal Count

If Edwin 'Teddy' Flack won the 800m and 1500m, then why does Australia have no gold medals in the tally?

I'm guessing the medal tally at the time of this posting included Flack as British (this would lead to the 1/0/0 "mixed team" results as well). It has since been modified to consider Flack's participation as Australian. -- Jonel | Speak 23:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Nations - Bulgaria

I don't know what and why "most sources" list, but Bulgaria did participate in the first Olympiad, sending five athletes and only one competing, Charles Champaud, a Swiss teacher (who represented Bulgaria according to the BOC) that came fifth in the vault (gymnastics) and also took part in two other disciplines. Bulgaria was 11th in the final standings with 2 points. Source: Bulgarian Olympic Committee website. Here's the Swedish Olympic Committee website that also says Bulgaria took part: [2].

According to Coubertin, Pierre De; Timoleon J. Philemon, The Olympic Games: BC 776 – AD 1896 (http://www.la84foundation.org/6oic/OfficialReports/1896/1896.pdf), page 80 : "IV. Contest Exercises on the vaulting Horse. In that contest 17 Champions took part, but there was only one Hellene amongst them, M. Petmezas of Patras, the rest comprised, a Bulgarian, Mr Champoff, Mr Zutter a Swiss, and several Hungarians and Germans" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.117.243 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Chile also claims an athlete in 1896. I think adding those two and subtracting Egypt probably gives the 14 the IOC counts. -- Jonel | Speak 04:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nations - Cyprus

14 nations? Since when the IOC are experts in political geography?

1. Kasdaglis is from Egypt, an Ottoman province under British mandate. Petrokokkinos is apparently from Greece. The IOC tells Kasdaglis is Greek but give no information about Petrokokkinos, but they are listed as a mixed team. According to IOC, Petrokokkinos is from where? And if he is Greek, then Kasdaglis would be Egyptian (unless we have a proof he was representing Greece at the 1896 Olympics).

2. Smyrna was, and still is, part of Turkey (Ottoman Empire at the time), except for the years 1919 to 1922. Unless we have prooves they were reprensenting Greece, we should list the two athletes from Smyrna under the Ottoman Empire flag.

3. Cyprus was since 1878 an Ottoman province administered under British mandate, a distinct entity like Egypt. Unless we have prooves Anastasios Andreou was competing from Greece, he should be listed under Cyprus.

4. But maybe we should list Kasdaglis and Andreou under Ottoman Empire... I would like to see what is the official version of the Turkish NOC on this subject.

5. For the cases of Bulgaria, Chile and Italy, if the affirmations of those NOC are not challenged by others (particularly the Swiss NOC and the IOC), they should be listed as participating countries.

6. My opinion is that we should list those countries: Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, France, Greece, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, Switzerland and United States, a total of 16 countries.

Souris2005 09:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I should have add Ottoman Empire because of the two athletes of Smyrna. That city was undisputedly in Turkey at the time, and there is no resason to think they were representing a particular country, but more their hometown. My opinion is there should be 17 countries listes instead of the 14 of the IOC, unnamed by the way. Souris2005 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to let us know once you get the IOC to update itself. Good luck. -- Jonel | Speak 05:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it's even a debate for them, they probably don't care at all.Souris2005 16:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The first modern international Olympic Games

The first, second, and third modern international Olympic Games held in Athens in 1859, 1870, and 1875 were not minor events. The 1870 Games was held in a bonafide Olympic stadium. An ancient stadium that was refurbished for the revival of the Olympic Games (when Baron Pierre de Coubertin was only 7 years old). Athletes participated from Smyrna, Crete, and Macedonia at these Games (all of which were still part of the Ottoman Empire). Which automatically qualifies the 1859, 1870, and 1875 Olympic Games as international.

That same Panathenian stadium was used a total of five times for the Olympic Games: 1870, 1875, 1896, 1906, and for events in 2004.

Baron Pierre de Coubertin didn't suddenly wake up one morning and decide that he was going to revive the Olympic Games. He jumped on the Olympic bandwagon. Asked the Greeks if they could organize yet another Olympic Games and the Greeks gladly obliged and paid for it.

What thanks do the Greeks get for reviving the Olympic Games in modern times? They are ignored completely. Baron Pierre de Coubertin apparently had a brainwave of inspiration whilst he covered his eyes with blinkers pretending that he knew nothing about the revival in Greece. Then the IOC continues to claim that the Baron revived the Olympic Games in modern times.

Then there are all the stupid quotes from the Baron and from Samaranch about how Much Wenlock was first and completely ignore what happened in Greece.

To revive the Olympic Games in modern times: 1. You had to have an Olympic stadium (which they had in 1870 in Athens but didn't have in 1900 in Paris). 2. Revivals can only be revived in the place of origin. So the revival had to come from Greece and there had to be Greek athletes involved. You can't call a Games "Olympic" unless it had some connection to the original "Olympic Games". What better connection than the ancient Panathenian stadium. 3. A revival must also have authentic athletic events. It had to be at the very least a national revival from Greece or an international revival including Greece. Dr Brookes national event at Crystal Palace in 1866 was a valiant attempt and he deserves credit for that. But let's not confuse the sports days that they called the Wenlock Olympian Games with the Olympic Games. There is no comparison. Granted that the Baron borrowed many of Dr Brookes ideas for the IOC's version of the Olympic Games. But let's make no mistake. The Wenlock Olympian Games were not Olympic-like before the 1860s and didn't really qualify as anything like an Olympic Games before that one single national event in 1866. Nipsonanomhmata 04:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Switzerland on Map

Switzerland is listed as a participant nation and has its own page, yet it isn't filled in on the map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Imlepid (talk • contribs) 23:11, 16 August 2006.

Completely hadn't noticed that, but you're definitely right. I don't know how to fix images like that, but I'll drop a note on the uploader's talk page. -- Jonel | Speak 04:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

yikes dont know how I missed that, but its fixed now --Astrokey44 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

pigeon racing

I've definately heard pigeon racing was featured, either on the bbc or another reputable website. Plokt

I think you are thinking of the 1900 Games. Andrwsc 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, go ahead. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources

I want to improve the Dutch article (Olympische Zomerspelen 1896) to a Featured article and therefore I would use the English article as a good example. While reading this article I saw the notes like Young (1996), 153; Zarnowski (1992), 16–32; Sears (2001), 159; I wonder what they refer to. Are thay pages of books or magazines or something else? And how can I read them? Are they to be found online or not?

Greetings from the Netherlands,

Rubietje88 (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed page numbers of books and/or magazines. The list of what books and magazines is at the bottom of the page, in the "references" section. If they are online, they should be linked there as well. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I did not understand that! Well, thank you very much and I hope this will bring me lots of information. ;)

Greetings from the Netherlands, Rubietje88 (nl) 12:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We all screw up sometimes

"the Olympics did not return to Greece until the 2004 Summer Olympics, some 104 years later." Now correct me if I am wrong, but 2004-1896=108. - POKETNRJSH(not logged, too lazy) - 10 Sept. 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.244.56 (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Error on map

In 1896 Austria Hungary was the Union of Austria and Hungary. The Austrian portion contained modern Austria, Czech Republic, Slovenia and Austo Hungarian controlled Poland. Hungary comprised modern day Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The whole of Austria-Hungary should be shaded. It is anachronistic to only shade modern Austria and Hungary. --User:74.218.177.250

1896 Olympic Games was not the first in the modern era

You cannot say that the 1896 Olympic Games was the first Olympic Games of the modern era. That simply is not true. The Olympic Games sponsored by Zappas preceded these Games. Refer to The Modern Olympics, A Struggle for Revival by David C. Young. The tickets sold for the 1859, 1870 and 1875 Olympic Games had the name Olympics printed on them. The 1896 Olympic Games was preceded by four Olympic Games including the national Olympic Games held at Crystal Palace in London in 1866. Obviously the predecessors weren't organised by the IOC since Baron Pierre de COubertin had not been born before 1st of January 1863. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 02:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.coch.cl/museo.htm
  • In 1896 Summer Olympics on 2011-05-25 02:27:31, 404 Not Found
  • In 1896 Summer Olympics on 2011-06-01 23:57:07, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

19th century

The Panathinaiko Stadium wasn't the only olympic stadium used in the 19th century. The 19th century lasted from 1801 to 1900, meaning that the Vélodrome de Vincennes also held the olympics in the 19th century. Eirik1231 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Date and language format

The article appears to have been originally using the American (Month Day, Year) date format. Over time it draw away from that format and in February the the International (Day Month Year) format was officially applied. I have restored it based on my research. However, it looks odd with the amount of British English used. If it is decided that it should be returned so that the International date format is used, I can easily do that and if someone contacts me, I will gladly do it. However, returning the ordinals to the events table should not be done. --16:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 1896 Summer Olympics

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 1896 Summer Olympics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "D":

• From Sailing at the 1900 Summer Olympics: "Exposition Universelle Internationale de 1900, Concours D'Exercices Physiques et de Sports" (PDF) (in French). Imprimerie Nationale (LA84). 1901. pp. 399–430. Retrieved 16 March 2014.
• From Sailing at the 2012 Summer Olympics: "Sailing at the 2012 London Summer Games". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved 1 April 2014.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Google Doodle/Wikipedia On this day mention, semi-protection/pending changes protection necessary?

The topic gets featured as today's Google Doodle and Wikipedia's On This day. Semiprotection/pending changes protection is a must hence its timing, nature, importance and is a featured article on Wikipedia. Ryan (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

FOLLOW-UP: I guess the administrators agree as the article is semi-protected just now Ryan (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ryan165.234.180.67 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Translation for German quote

The German quote needs a translation... otherwise should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlavisbad (talk • contribs) 09:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

"at the Kallithea"

In the "Venues" section we're told that the fencing events were held "at the Zappeion" (which makes sense, since it is a building), but that the sport shooting events were held "at the Kallithea" (which doesn't, since Kallithea is simply a district of Athens). This should presumably be changed to "at Kallithea" (as later on in the article), so I've done so ("in Kallithea" would in fact be even better English). This error may be due to the fact that the Greek words for "in Kallithea" (στην Καλλιθέα) literally mean "in the Kallithea", which suggests that the article was written, unedited, by a native Greek-speaker.188.230.240.75 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Calendar now nonfunctional.

The calendar no longer has dots that lead to links showing the events. We could either:

1. Create a list of every event in the 1896 Olympics, or

2. Repurpose the calendar.

I won't touch a thing until a decision is made.

M0ntenegro (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

1896 Olympics

If one cares (dares?) to visit the homepage of IOC, [[3]], one can make the dull observation that they never talk about any "summer olympics", they only talk about Olympic games and Winter Olympic Games. The name of this article is thus slightly mistaken, in the parlance of the Olympic Committee at least. Why not set it straight? 1896 Olympics --78.73.226.176 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Number of participating nations

The second paragraph begins thus: "Thirteen nations and 280 athletes (all males) took part in the games..." Just five sentences further: "Ten of the 14 participating nations earned medals."

So was it thirteen nations or fourteen?!

I'm amazed we only had two different numbers. Might have been 10, might have been 12, might have been 13, might have been 14, might have been 15. I've changed the paragraph to conform to the IOC numbers, which we use in the infobox as well. The rest of the article does have discussion of the varying counts, in the participating nations section. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

European teams?

The summary paragraphs state that the only non-European team at the games was the Americans, yet later on the article mentions a singular Chilean athlete at the games. Is this an error or is it non technically a mistake because he was possibly there by himself. If the latter is true should the intro summary be changed to be more clear about the number of non-European athletes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allhutsincuba (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Chilean participation in 1896 is very controversial in Olympic history circles. Basically, Chilean historians insist a 13 year old competed in the 100m whilst the rest of the world admit he was entered into the race but find no proof he actually turned up to race. Topcardi (talk) 12:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 24 April 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. There are valid arguments on both sides, but neither side is significantly stronger than the other, therefore, there is not a clear enough consensus to change the status quo. Given the multiple relists, it is unlikely a clear consensus would develop if this RM were left open for longer. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

---

• 1896 Summer Olympics → 1896 Olympics
• 1900 Summer Olympics → 1900 Olympics
• 1904 Summer Olympics → 1904 Olympics
• 1908 Summer Olympics → 1908 Olympics
• 1912 Summer Olympics → 1912 Olympics
• 1916 Summer Olympics → 1916 Olympics
• 1920 Summer Olympics → 1920 Olympics

– Disambiguation with "Summer" is not required, as the Winter Olympics did not begin until 1924, and the current title is not the WP:COMMONNAME: 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920 BilledMammal (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. 晚安 (トークページ) 16:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. There was no such thing as the "Summer Olympics" in these years. And "Winter Olympic" sports like figure skating and ice hockey were competed at these Olympics, so it is potentially confusing to use the misnomer of "Summer Olympics" for these games. And based on the Google Ngrams, "Year Olympics" is more common than "Year Summer Olympics" for all of these years. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

  Agree re Google Ngrams search results, so I am also supporting these moves. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 20:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Showiecz (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: Is the intention also to make the change on related nations and sports pages like "X at the 1896 Summer Olympics" to "X at the 1896 Olympics"? Nimrodbr (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  Per WP:CONSISTENT I would say that those should be changed as well. But those can be handled in a separate move request later after this one is over. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

  On the contrary, I think it is right to conduct the discussion on all its implications together and not by the salami method. Nimrodbr (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

  From an administrator's perspective (which is what I'm currently commenting from) if there is no opposition to the proposed "why don't we move them all" in this discussion, I would not see it as unreasonable to then move the relevant pages if there was unanimous (or close to it) support. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning to Oppose + comment I don't think the moves themselves should happen just on two support votes, as there's clearly a bigger impact on the related pages as well. There's a Featured Article in the mix (I thought there was others, but just the 1896 page), along with titles such as "Olympiska sommarspelen 1912", "Jeux olympiques d'été de 1920", etc, in the lead, and the title convention across all other language wikis. Looking at WP:TITLECHANGES it states - "If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed". I guess it's fine tuning the nuance of "no good reason". However, if there is a good reason, AND there's a better volume of votes (either supporting or opposing), then go with that. Or maybe the solution would be to scrap this, and open an RfC to get a wider input? I'm not trying to bludgeon a/the process, but would like a bigger audience to contribute to this, so we don't get a day/week/month after a possibly contentious move being questioned further. I've already dropped a note at WT:OLY, but I'll bump it for more editors to have their say. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Minor correction; four in support, not two - myself, Rreagon007, Iggy the Swan, and Showiecz. BilledMammal (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• oppose at that time they were just Olympic Games, but I think based on current summer/winter system they are often referred to summer games (plus the dates were in summer and "winter sports" were held indoors. As Lugnuts mentions, the affected pages include Figure skating at the Olympic Games, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, etc. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose For what it's worth, the IOC I believe prefers "1896 Athens Olympics" etc., but I don't think that that usage is common enough at present to justify using it on Wikipedia. Nomination makes good points, but WP:TITLECHANGES, as Lugnuts raises, is valid as well. Personally I think it would be weird to have most of the editions as summer/winter and then a few not, a view that is supported by WP:TITLECON and its preference for consistent titles; even though that is just one consideration according to the policy, it what tips it for me. Canadian Paul 02:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think WP:TITLECHANGES is an argument against the move, given most of WP:CRITERIA supports the move. I do, however, think that it supports the move, as it requires us not to use extremely uncommon names, and the name 1916 Summer Olympics is extremely uncommon, with the use of it too low to appear in ngrams. BilledMammal (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
• Comment, interesting discussion. I hadn't thought too much about it before but I am inclined to side in weak support with dropping the "summer" from the aforementioned titles as per BilledMammal's view, as it does seem erroneous when there is no corresponding winter games for those periods. At the time of those respective events, I am sure there would not have been any formal mention of the season when referring to them. The issue I guess is that to move these then means that all the respective "summer-season" Olympic articles do not have a consistent title. What tilts it for me is that there were winter events too held simultaneously at these events, so the "summer" is more around the "when" rather than the "what" until 1924 onwards. I don't see a big enough issue if we keep the current titles as redirects. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - I see the argument, but I don't think this is really a case of WP:COMMONNAME. Take a look at 2020's ngram data, for which the naming is not in dispute, and the numbers look similar. I would feel differently if there was a factual inaccuracy in the titles, or if the current titles broke the style guide. However, considering they are merely overly elaborating, and reverting that elaboration requires prior knowledge from the user to know why the naming convention changes (not to mention the massive amount of movement required to meet "well, technically you don't need this much clarification in the title"), this is just not a move I can support. -fuzzy510 (talk) 14:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • If this is approved, I wouldn't expect other editors to move those pages; I would do it myself. I don't think that is a good argument against moving. BilledMammal (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

    The page movement isn't a primary argument against moving - if you could tell me that every article and link in the Wiki would be moved and unbroken, I would still oppose the move. -fuzzy510 (talk) 03:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

    To address the rest of your comment, the WP:COMMONNAME of 2020 Olympics is not relevant to this move request; the only question is whether the most common name for the 1900 Olympics is "1900 Summer Olympics" or "1900 Olympics", and the answer is clearly the latter. Google Scholar reinforces this, with 208 results for "1900 Olympics", compared to 61 results for "1900 Summer Olympics". Further, there is an inaccuracy here; these Olympics included Winter Olympics events, and were not "Summer Olympics" in the current meaning of the term. BilledMammal (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. As with last year's RM, there's no clear consensus on how to interpret the article titles policy with regards to these articles. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

---

• 1896 Summer Olympics → 1896 Olympics
• 1900 Summer Olympics → 1900 Olympics
• 1904 Summer Olympics → 1904 Olympics
• 1908 Summer Olympics → 1908 Olympics
• 1912 Summer Olympics → 1912 Olympics
• 1916 Summer Olympics → 1916 Olympics
• 1920 Summer Olympics → 1920 Olympics

– Per WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, and WP:COMMONNAME. The current disambiguation with Summer is not required, as the Winter Olympics did not begin until 1924, and inaccurate, as the 1908 and 1920 Olympics included Winter events, and the cancelled 1916 Olympics would have included Winter events. The proposed title is also the COMMONNAME for these events, per ngrams: 1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, 1912, 1916, 1920 BilledMammal (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not think anything has really changed in the months since the previous RM just last year. Basically, the same OP just copied and pasted their same arguments, including the same Google Books links instead of adding substantial new sources. But I would still error on the side of WP:TITLECHANGES, where If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. And the previous problem that was raised: where shortening those titles would require prior knowledge from the reader to know why the naming convention changed prior to the start of theses separate Olympics. Instead we should still keep some WP:CONSIST across these articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  The games happened over 100 years ago; not much is going to change but I think it is reasonable to reconsider it a year later and hopefully come to a consensus either way.

  1908 Summer Olympics, 1916 Summer Olympics, and 1920 Summer Olympics are inaccurate, due to including Winter events; I believe this is a good reason to change it. I also believe moving the article to comply with WP:COMMONNAME is a good reason to change it.

  If additional sources will help convince you, consider the Google Scholar results:

Games	YEAR Summer Olympics	YEAR Olympics
1896 Olympics	87 results	356 results
1900 Olympics	53 results	227 results
1904 Olympics	64 results	391 results
1908 Olympics	90 results	565 results
1912 Olympics	118 results	828 results
1916 Olympics	10 results	153 results
1920 Olympics	91 results	413 results

BilledMammal (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. There was no such thing as the "Summer Olympics" in these years. And "Winter Olympic" sports like figure skating and ice hockey were competed at these Olympics, so it is potentially confusing to use the misnomer of "Summer Olympics" for these games. And based on the Google Ngrams, "Year Olympics" is more common than "Year Summer Olympics" for all of these years. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as Zzyzx11. Nothing has changed in the months since the previous RM last year. There are still the same Google Books links instead of adding substantial new sources. WP:TITLECHANGES states, If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Shortening those titles would require prior knowledge from the reader to know why the naming convention changed. Keep WP:CONSIST across Olympics articles. Jeff in CA (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

TITLECHANGES only applies to when "there is no good reason to change it", and so does not cover policy-based reasons like COMMONNAME. Avilich (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support I hadn't seen last year's RM for some reason but I've read through the arguments. I can understand where some of the opposes are coming from. What leads me to land slightly on the support side is the inclusion of winter sports from 1908 onwards, so the "Summer" bit in the title is misleading and incorrect. It would be odd to just move those articles where winter sports were included and hence, if we change titles, then everything pre-1924 should change. Schwede66 08:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. These articles need to be distinguished. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Distinguished from what? Avilich (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. The extra "Summer" is unnecessary and adds confusion. WP:CONSISTency explicitly excludes disambiguation (in this case "Summer" and "Winter"), which is by definition inconsistent: some titles will need them and some won't. Avilich (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.