Jump to content

Talk:Cross-country skiing (sport)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title

[edit]

I suggest that the title be that represented in boldface in the lead section, i.e. Cross-country ski competition, and have the title, "Cross-country skiing (sport)" redirect to that. This would also mirror the Cross-country skiing#Competition section. User:HopsonRoad 17:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the remodeled introductory words. I also note that it's Cycle sport and Rowing (sport). User:HopsonRoad 22:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ski marathon

[edit]

I am not familiar with the notion of "Ski marathon", in Norway this type of competition is known as "Ski tour competitions". It is not (only) the distance that distinguishes these from the standard FIS races, but also the profile of the track, competition in various classes etc. For instance in the Birkebeiner race all carry a small backpack, the race is over a mountain pass (unlike FIS/Olympic races that has a more varied track), there are competitions in various age classes (the contest is for the general public as well as for elite skiers). So distance does not capture the essence of such races. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Highest gear"

[edit]

It is not a big issue, but the discussion of various "gears" in skating confuses definition and consequence: If skating without poles is a part of the definition of the 5th gear, then the highest gear can not at the same time be the reason for not using poles. The text reads "the poles offer negligible added power and are not used for propulsion". This is a matter of logic and clarity. --Erik den yngre (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be clearer to say, "poles are not used for propulsion because they could contribute negligible additional power"? User:HopsonRoad 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is still the same content. I was merely trying to point out that there appears to be some kind of underlying tautology. There is a crucial difference between "without poling" as part of the definition of 5th gear, and "without poling" as a likely consequence of 5th gear. Such consequences or results are only probable, hence the words like "often", "usually" or "normally". So, is 5th gear defined as the speed where poles are not used, or is 5th a certain speed (in km/h for instance) where poles are typically not used. This is not clear from the way it is now presented. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "Gear" is in parentheses—it is an analogy. The terms in the other two columns are the terms and their definitions. User:HopsonRoad 16:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, no I am not referring to the notion of "gear" but the definition of the five levels. If poles are by definition never used at 5th gear, then it actually does not make sense to say they are not used because they do not add power, this is a kind of circular reasoning. --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not even to explain why? User:HopsonRoad 17:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I used the source text, which may solve the conundrum. Note that this is different from the table in the Norsk bokmål version. User:HopsonRoad 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is of course a need to explain why poles are not used, my point is simply that the explanation must be independent of the notion of 5th gear (to avoid circular reasoning, circular reasoning does not really add information). From the current text it is not clear why athletes don't use poles at the highest "gear". Why don't poles add to propulsion? Perhaps at a certain speed poles are not useful? --Erik den yngre (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata

[edit]

I rearranged wikidata links. This article is now connected to Langrenn in Norwegian and Långdåkning in Swedish. The German language article appears to deal with XC skiing in general. --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When to italicize titles

[edit]

Minor works (pamphlets, web sites, etc.) have titles in quotation marks per MOS:TITLEQUOTES. Major works (books, television shows, movies, works of music, etc.) have italicized titles per WP:MOSTITLE. One can see this pattern in the Reference section, as well. User:HopsonRoad 14:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TITLEQUOTES allows a little latitude. In this article quotation marks are being used for three things: titles, quotations, and "jargon", and this--combined with frequent use of long sentences and em dashes mixed with commas--reduces readability. --Cornellier (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about non-english words such as "langrenn" or "Langlauf"? --Erik den yngre (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FOREIGN says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English." --Cornellier (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling about MOS:TITLEQUOTES is that, if the citation shows in quotes in the Reference section, it should show the same way in the text. Likewise for references that show up as italics. User:HopsonRoad 23:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have linked some X-C techniques to credible "how-to" videos, per WP:ELYES: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues [my emphasis],[3] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons [my emphasis]." It seems to me that video demonstrates what's being described in a manner that still images cannot. User:HopsonRoad 14:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Useful references

[edit]

I can't find links that allow me to read:

  • Hallbert, F.; Mueckenbruenn, H. (1936), Le Ski Par la Technique Moderne. (The Complete Book of Skiing) (in English translation by Brian Lunn), Edward Arnold, p. 317{{citation}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  • Editors. "Worldoppet Anniversary Book". Worldoppet Ski Federation. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

The International Skiing History Association has a useful bibliography at:

User:HopsonRoad 15:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian and Norwegian references

[edit]

Erik den yngre and Cornellier, I'm on board with the explication of Norwegian terms to explain history, but I find it odd to have a column on skate-skiing terminology for Norwegian. Why not Finnish, Swedish or Russian? I feel that it isn't value added to the English-speaking reader. Also, I'm concerned that quite a few statements, especially in the Marathon section use references in Norwegian that can't be inspected or read further in by an English speaker. I'd like to hear your thoughts. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your concern, Refs in Norwegian is of course not ideal in English WP, but is acceptable if the best sources are in Norwegian (on Norwegian WP we use lots of foreign language sources, Swedish, Danish and English of course, some German and French, but even Russian). I agree that the column on Norwegian terminology was a stretch. A comparison I think is useful as this kind of specialised terminology is not covered in ordinary dictionaries. The language of football and tennis is English, the language of XC is Norwegian/Swedish and perhaps Finish. --— Erik Jr. 23:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your thoughts, there, Erik den yngre. However, we have our own words for skiing terms in English, which are in the table. We are unacquainted with the Norwegian words, which makes me feel that I'm just reading curious facts, not ones that are central to the article. Were it up to me, I would remove the Norwegian column. As to refs, I'd rather use websites where one can read the rules for marathons than use a dictionary, which is not on line. User:HopsonRoad 04:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that because WP:Verify says, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." I don't feel that we meet the anyone criterion with a Norwegian encyclopedia that is not on line. It also says, "Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available." I would like to work harder at the English sources. User:HopsonRoad 04:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps better remove the column I added, not the best ideas I had. But still perhaps mention in the text that the basic "gears" in skating are called gears in other languages too but with different labels. --— Erik Jr. 08:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that online sources better supports the verifiability criterion. The Norwegian encyclopedia is online (scanned), and by providing exact reference (page number etc) I think that is sufficiently verifiable. I also agree that English language sources are prerable for the EN wiki. That may on the other create a bias if sources in other languages give a better globale perspective. Sources in other languages may also be more reliable. As a general comment I am not perfectly comfortable with web pages as sources, pages can change and disappear, a book in the library does not. Best regards --— Erik Jr. 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these two thoughts, Erik den yngre. The column wasn't a bad idea—I enjoyed seeing the fact that Norwegians "paddle" and "dance"—it just didn't seem central to a GA article nominee. If you could post a link to the scanned version of the encyclopedia here, that would make me very happy. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have kept the terminology comparison in the no-wiki article. Idrettsleksikon (encyclopedia), only from Norwegian IPs it seems, sorry. The National library has scanned some 1/2 million books, but some limits on use. — Erik Jr. 15:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-FIS racing

[edit]

Another thought: The descriptions of classifications really apply more broadly than just marathon events. We might consider a section on Non-FIS racing that would include school and university competition and citizen races. I feel that we should leave only the Worldloppet-sourced items in the marathon section and hold onto the other thoughts for future development in such a new section. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Still I think that the heading "marathon" (and definition) is a bit misleading. Traditional cross-country races are 30 or 50 km, also for elite races. The way I understand it: these races are not necessarily much longer than FIS or elite races, but they are open to the public, "citizen races", and competition is within classes, and it is a "tour" (a trip from A to B) not just round a closed circuit. --— Erik Jr. 15:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For English speakers, "marathon" is the word commonly applied to point-to-point races of 40K and longer. User:HopsonRoad 16:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've set up a sandbox at the top of this page, where we can develop the section without messing up the article, prematurely. User:HopsonRoad 15:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess "marathon" is the right word, but still it is important to explain the difference between "turrenn"/marathon open to the public (with 10,000 participants or more) and elite races. I dont think it is the 40 km that defines this type of race, some Worldloppet Ski Federation are indeed shorter. There is also a greater variety of tracks and rules, for instance the Birkebeinerrace everybody have to carry a rucksack at 3,5 kg (like a baby). Birkebeinerrace is long uphill then a long downhill, Vasaloppet is relatively flat. --— Erik Jr. 16:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "marathon" part comes from the length; a true marathon is 42.2 km. User:HopsonRoad 17:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross-country skiing (sport). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to: Cross-country ski competition?

[edit]

I've always felt that the title of this article was awkward and doesn't lend itself to a smooth lead sentence. I suggest that the article be named Cross-country ski competition (which currently is a redirect) and the lead sentence be: "Cross-country ski competition encompasses a variety of race formats and course lengths." I look forward to your input. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. --— Erik Jr. 20:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Parentheses are especially awkward in a title. --Cornellier (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been posted at WP:Requested moves (I can do it post-hoc if you wish). While I'm not a fan of parenthetical disambiguation either, I don't see a better alternative to the current title. "Cross-country ski competition" strongly implies a single event, rather than the sport as a whole. "Competitive cross-country skiing" has an informal feel to it. We already have similar situations in Swimming vs. Swimming (sport); Aquaplaning vs. Aquaplaning (sport); Sailing vs. Sailing (sport); Rowing vs. Rowing (sport). No such user (talk) 08:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 January 2022

[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 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. Many alternative titles, but no clear consensus for any of them. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-country skiing (sport) → Cross-country ski competition – See discussion at Talk:Cross-country skiing#Move to: Cross-country ski competition? Three editors agree that "Cross-country ski competition" is a preferable title. One editor is concerned that it implies a single event and prefers the current title. Since the target title is already occupied as a redirect, this is a technical move. HopsonRoad (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with an earlier comment, suggesting that option has too informal a feel. It could imply someone skiing outside of a sanctioned race, trying to pull ahead of another skier. The proposed title already exists in the current infobox. I don't concur that the proposed title implies a single event, however. Merriam-Webster defines "competition" as "the act or process of competing"—a general concept, not a specific event, unless one says "a competition". Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over-complicating it. If the phrase "competitive cross-country skiing" is what the lead sentence has settled on, it must be an adequate and commonly used name for the topic. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's incorrect to say that term is what it "has settled on". That's the term that triggered this discussion. The lead term had been stable since 2014, as "The sport of cross-country skiing" since at least 2014. HopsonRoad (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to model what natural language under the change would look like with the following: "Cross-country ski competition encompasses a variety of race formats, course lengths and styles of cross-country skiing. The sport's rules are sanctioned by the International Ski Federation and by various national organizations.", but you reverted it! "Competitive cross-country skiing" is awkward, as seen from the perspective of those familiar with the sport. (See Cornellier's comment, below.) Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a feasible option. Two thoughts that favor the "ski" over "skiing" are 1) fewer syllables and, more importantly, leaving "cross-country skiing" out of the words in boldface, allows linking to those words later in the sentence. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"ski" alone confuses the equipment and the activity and should not be used. "Skiing" (like Bicycling, Kayaking, Snowboarding, and of course Skiing) is preferred because WP:GERUND forms make it clear that the topic is about the activity, not the equipment used. -- Netoholic @ 03:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "ski alone" and gerunds, and usage elsewhere, innumerable counter examples may also be cited e.g. FIS Nordic World Ski Championships, Worldloppet Ski Federation, ski marathon (not skiing marathon), ski orienteering, Canoe sprint (vs. Canoeing), FIS Snowboard World Cup (not snowboarding), Road bicycle racing (not cycling (sport)), etc. Visibly there is no naming convention for this, so per WP:COMMONNAME let's go with what sounds natural. --Cornellier (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really had to dig for those counter-examples... and it weakens your case that you included named events. -- Netoholic @ 05:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Netoholic, Rreagan007, and No such user, I see two sources of justification going on here: 1) the Wikipedia precedent model that points to "Nameofsport (sport)" and 2) the natural speech model, which currently has three contenders, the proposed "cross-country ski competition", "cross-country skiing competition", and "competitive cross-country skiing". In North America where Cornellier (Canada) and I (USA) live, "cross-country ski competition" seems more idiomatic and natural, whereas "competitive cross-country skiing" is harder to say and therefore seems stilted to us. It would be helpful for someone to do a statistical analysis of the two phrases to see which is more endemic in natural speech. Then the decision would boil down to the Wikipedia precedent or the prevalent natural speech choice. Cheers to all, HopsonRoad (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: A search of Google Ngram produced results for "cross-country ski competition" and cross-country skiing competition (which scored slightly higher), but none for "competitive cross-country skiing". HopsonRoad (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HopsonRoad: You forgot to turn off case sensitivity, yet used a capital "C" in the 3rd link. Here are the corrected results for all three phrases: link. Note also that the phrases ending in "competition", almost exclusively, are results which talk about specific single competition events (example), whereas "competitive cross-country skiing" is descriptive of the entire sport genre. Even still, it comes in a very close 3rd in this unfair comparison, but because of the sure false hits of the first two makes it the most used phrase and the best possible title for this article. -- Netoholic @ 06:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: Thank you for correcting my methodology (which I was new to) and combining the results. I suggest that the results validated all three phrases. I concur that "cross-country ski(ing) competition" can be—and often is—used pertaining to a single event, but contend it can refer equally well to the general case. Since it seems that only one of the editors reporting in supports the "Nameofsport (sport)" model, what is the best methodology to decide among the three natural speech variants, discussed? None of the choices discussed is wrong—those corresponding here have expressed rational preferences. I suggest that we could do a ranked-choice vote among those who have weighed in here. What do you suggest? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ranked-choice poll of alternatives offered

[edit]

Because there are several alternatives offered to the existing title, I thought that perhaps a ranked-choice poll would help identify a consensus in this matter, in light of the discussion above. Accordingly, I invite each of you, who has weighed in so far, to rank your preference among the alternatives. I would propose to assign a Borda count score to each of your rankings. So, out of four choices, your first choice would score 4-1= 3 points; your fourth choice would score 4-4 = 0 points. Here is a opportunity for each of you to score the alternatives in the order that they were offered (of course, you don't have to vote for an alternative that's unacceptable to you):

HopsonRoad

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): 3
  • Cross-country ski competition: 1
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: 4
  • Cross-country skiing competition: 2

Comment on the above: I prefer the title to lead with "Cross-country ski(ing)".

Erik Jr.

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): 2
  • Cross-country ski competition: 3
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: 4
  • Cross-country skiing competition: 1

Comment on the above:

Cornellier

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): 3
  • Cross-country ski competition: 1
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: 4
  • Cross-country skiing competition: 2

Comment on the above:

No such user

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): 1 (per statement, above)
  • Cross-country ski competition:
  • Competitive cross-country skiing:
  • Cross-country skiing competition:

Comment on the above:

Netoholic

  • Cross-country skiing (sport):
  • Cross-country ski competition:
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: 1 (per statement, above)
  • Cross-country skiing competition:

Comment on the above:

Rreagan007

  • Cross-country skiing (sport):
  • Cross-country ski competition:
  • Competitive cross-country skiing:
  • Cross-country skiing competition: 1 (per statement, above)

Comment on the above:

BarrelProof

  • Cross-country skiing (sport):
  • Cross-country ski competition:
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: 1 (per statement, below)
  • Cross-country skiing competition:

Comment on the above:

ZXCVBNM

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): 1 (per statement, below)
  • Cross-country ski competition:
  • Competitive cross-country skiing:
  • Cross-country skiing competition:

Comment on the above:

I'm hoping to tally the results on Monday. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic, you are concerned that the "format is problematic and not how we achieve" consensus. I see nothing in the links that you provide that suggest such a poll can't point to a solution that represents a consensus. I concur that the results of the above poll cannot be construed as the consensus itself—only as a tool towards achieving it. I encourage others to participate in the poll in the above collapsed section. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has a better suggestion for achieving consensus, let's discuss it! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Competitive cross-country skiing as suggested above: That's natural and doesn't require parenthetical disambiguation. It also doesn't imply a single event and doesn't confuse the activity with the equipment and is already used in the article's opening sentence. It also matches the phrasing used in the corresponding more general article at Cross-country skiing. It also seems more precise than the current article title, because an athletic activity can be referred to as a sport without being pursued competitively. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Generally not a fan of things that change the first word of the title and make it harder to find in search, and the current suggestion sounds grammatically incorrect. Per WP:AINTBROKE I don't think this needs a modification, it is finding a problem where none exists as the parenthetical disambiguation makes it obvious which one's the sport and which one isn't.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No need to change the current title, which is the common name and precise, and as ZXCVBNM says, easily recognized and searchable. Other titles, including "competitive cross-country skiing" are less good in that regard, and there is no harm in having a parenthetical here.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Notes on the above choices:

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): parentheses are ugly and, though used elsewhere, by no means a standard.
  • Cross-country ski competition: more concise than "skiing".
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: the title should start with the subject, not a qualifier, for search and usability.
  • Cross-country skiing competition: gerund is longer than "ski", does not add meaning, and again, not a standard, see Canoe sprint, etc. --Cornellier (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results of poll, to date:

  • Cross-country skiing (sport): 10
  • Cross-country ski competition: 7
  • Competitive cross-country skiing: 6
  • Cross-country skiing competition: 10

These scores were calculated by populating the poll with the expressed choice of those, who have not yet participated and leaving the remaining choices blank. Scores were assigned to each choice, as follows: (4 – Rank of choice). Where no rank was given, no score was given. I invite those, who have not yet participated to do so, It may point to a consensus solution, especially if you comment on your ranking! Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Cross-country skiing competition"?

[edit]

I can support this suggestion in the light of the preferences and comments of others. Two editors (No such user and ZXCVBNM) strongly prefer the current title. If those, who preferred "Cross-country ski competition" (as I and Cornellier did) or "Competitive cross-country skiing" (as Netoholic and BarrelProof did), find this acceptable, and if Erik Jr. and Rreagan007 concur, then perhaps we have a consensus choice. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's better than what we have now. If it's the best we can agree upon, then let's go for it. --Cornellier (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not wish to amend my prior remarks. My impression remains that "Competitive cross-country skiing" is the most natural, recognizable and precise title for this article and is consistent with the name of the article at "Cross-country skiing". I somewhat share Netaholic's irritation with a dominating of the conversation by a sheer volume of commentary and steering remarks. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both works for me, but a title that begins with the most specific ("Cross-country....") is slightly better than a title that begins with the less specific "Competitive...". --— Erik Jr. 20:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cross-country skiing competition as it is far better than the current title. My only reservation is that it's confusing, as it is not a single competition. So the plural form would still be my preference, see below, followed by Competitive cross-country skiing. In that nobody else shows any interest in the plural so far, I won't make perfect the enemy of good. Cross-country skiing competition is good enough. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or even the plural form?
[edit]

How about Cross-country skiing competitions? That seems to be the scope of the article. I ski cross-country and regard it as one of my sports, but I never enter competition. So I think (sport) is not a good disambiguator.

See wp:plural of course, and I think this would be a good example of an allowed plural. But in any case, agree that some sort of move would improve Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is a sport

[edit]

I've been surprised to learn that some regard competitive sport as being the only form of sport.

This seems at least controversial, so that should count against using (sport) as a disambiguator. This article is specifically about a competitive sport.

Our article on Sport is currently about any form of competitive physical activity or game (my emphasis).

However it later states There are opposing views on the necessity of competition as a defining element of a sport... and cites the Council of Europe as considering sport to include all forms of physical exercise. Fascinating. Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cross-country_skiing_(sport)&oldid=1212938553"