|WikiProject Olympics||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
At present, the article contains a lot of non-enyclopaedic language: "a bit of a compromise", "did not like this at all", "hijacked", "must have seemed like a lifeline", "didn't" (never use contraction in a non-informal text), and so on. This is not a criticism of the content (although it should probably sound less judgmental here and there), but simply of the language used. athinaios 06:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- 7 minutes is not enough time to register a complaint about the merge. How about a more substantial amount of time, like a week? 184.108.40.206 05:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I think the Intercalated Games should be a separate article, an the 1906 Olympics article should focus on those games, with this article focusing on the fact of the intercalated games 220.127.116.11 05:27, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think there should be a reference to the Intercalated Games in the general article on the Olympic Games (as indeed there already is) so that anyone interested may look up the more detailed article AL 15/11/2005
Merge with 1906 Summer Olympics?
There is a tag on the article saying "It has been suggested that 1906 Summer Olympics be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)" but the only such suggestion or discussion I can see is from March 2005. Am I in the wrong place?
- For the record, I vote No. Scolaire 23:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The request Scolaire saw was:
- Intercalated Games and 1906 Summer Olympics. Both pages feature nearly identical information, and the same headings Origin, First Intercalated Games, Destiny, Downgrading, and Winter Sports. PolarisSLBM 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- According to the 2005-votes, they didn't want a merge. However, I must agree with PolarisSLBM - the content is nearly exactly the same, and in many cases not applicable to the article. I am going to merge sections that are not applicable to one or the other article, but I will leave the articles themselves separate. --Leviel 10:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)