Talk:Swimming (sport)

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. I also note that the other discussion cited in the move request ended without consensus, so I would dispute the "has been determined" assertion. Please feel free to take up the consistency claim again at Human swimming on the basis of this result, if you like. Dekimasuよ! 09:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Swimming (sport)Human swimming (sport) – Since it has been determined that Swimming is an ambiguous concept, and the article on swimming by humans should be at Human swimming, it follows that this article, as a subtopic of human swimming, should consistently be titled Human swimming (sport). Swimming as a sport can also involve non-human animals, as with this competitive dog swimming race, and these horses swimming as part of a cross-country race. bd2412 T 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment, I'm not convinced by the idea of swimming animals engaging in sport. Dolphins may swim along with boats but can imagine that they may do this just for fun rather than for the sake of competing with the boat. In any case I don't think that concept of animals engaging in sport has been especially developed. Gregkaye 21:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Even if animals engaged in no sports, Swimming is a disambiguation page. The sport of swimming as discussed in this article is a subtopic of Human swimming, and the subtopic name should carry forward the supertopic name. bd2412 T 03:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sorry but I'm not buying that argument. Only humans engage in sport, thus this article title is not ambiguous and does not need to be changed. Talk of subtopics and supertopics is irrelevant - each article stands independently on the merit of it's own content. Wikipedia articles are not arranged hierarchically - the only significant exceptions are "list of" or similar spin-off pages that derive their existence and content directly from one or more other articles. The title of one article has no specific relevance to the title of another, even if it is a "subtopic" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes it should. Well spotted. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
That proposal already failed this month -- (talk) 05:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is why the titles remain inconsistent. "Swimming" is not even about the general concept of swimming, but is currently a disambiguation page that distinguishes animal swimming, human swimming, this sport, and a few media titles. bd2412 T 14:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
So what? I don't understand why you seem to believe that there is a requirement that titles of different articles need to have some form of "consistency" between them. There has never been any such requirement, the title of one article has no relevance to the title of any other article. We have a pretty good policy and guidelines about article titles, read them when you have a little time. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
"Consistency" has been one of the five WP:CRITERIA for article titles for several years now. If you've read that policy this decade, you'll have seen the requirement that titles of different articles need to have "consistency" between them. We have a pretty good policy and guidelines about article titles, read them when you have a little time. bd2412 T 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
There's barely more than a single sentence about consistency, the other criteria are explained much more comprehensively. Aiui "consistency" is about for example deciding whether to use the abreviation or the full name of a state in the title of articles about town and cities that need disambiguation. The guides and policies we need to look at here are about disambiguation, that's the real issue aiui. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation is a parallel consideration, but if we have one article on "aquatic locomotion", a second article on "human swimming", and a third article on "swimming (sport)", it makes it seem as though "swimming (sport)" is a different topic than "human swimming", and therefore does not involve humans. bd2412 T 00:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per Lugnuts. I think its a shame we have to add the disambiguator for the sport, maybe because it is to separate the competitive sport from the activity. Human swimming stinks because it is not normal usage. To distinguish it from animals that swim? Are we going to compare a dog swimming to a fish? Why not a catch all swimming article that covers all animals (or plants for that matter) that swim, including humans, with a link to the sport. The extra level of specificity is unnecessary until you get to a much higher level of discussion swimming habits of salmon which can also fork out of a catch all article. Trackinfo (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm not convinced by any arguments that "Swimming (sport)" is not precise enough. There is not really any sport involving animals. And as mentioned, the phrase "Human swimming" when referring to the sport is not common usage. I understand that elements of WP:AT are conflicting here, but there are two (Precision and Common Name) against one (Consistency), so I opt for the former side. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    • "Human swimming" is not common usage when referring to the activity itself, whether as a sport or not, but that is the title of our article on swimming by humans. bd2412 T 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and laughing. Sorry, can't take this one too seriously but I'll try. In Australia and I think elsewhere (am I wrong?) the noun swimming is so commonly used for the human activity and so rarely used for anything else that this nomination reads like something out of Monty Python. If there are any valid policy-based arguments above, we better fix them. Thanks for making my day! Andrewa (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2014 (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.

Lead Section[edit]

I edited the lead section of this article as an assignment for a course I am currently taking at Johns Hopkins University. Ahong11 (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)


I hadn't seen the new vote from FINA, so I added: In addition, FINA announced in 2014 that a single dolphin kick can be added to the breaststroke pullout prior to the first breaststroke kick. I added this because this is relevant towards the dolphin kick and since it was voted in just recently, in 2014, I felt the addition was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlannen (talkcontribs) 19:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Swimming (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.

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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, 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) 21:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Health Benefits[edit]

While looking over the article I noticed that the section on health benefits has less information then it should, so I am thinking about adding in a few more details about some more benefits. Andrea.Rogers (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Andrea.Rogers

Feel free to do so, but keep in mind WP's policies on verifiability and reliable sources. Thanks! 19:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)