Talk:Women's sports

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


Women's sports[edit]

the article does not really say if men and women are treated equal in sports at all.Italic text

This article doesn't say much of anything. It's just a collection of shallow social rhetoric with few solid facts. The intro and "History" section need to be completely re-written. Djcastel 18:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I've rewritten the text and fixed the links and formatting issues.Djcastel 19:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the history section, I think it is important that Title IX is mentioned and that you give a larger background of what it has done for women in sports. It is mentioned briefly in the Women in sports today section but I don't think it is talked about enough. Title IX changed the entire way women's athletics were seen. It is a huge reason why there are women sports today in colleges and high schools and why women's sports have been able to thrive. More information on the topic is definitely needed.Ilovedisneyland11 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ancient Olympics[edit]

a women may participate by sendnig a chariot, and even more there were some olimpic female chaminons who nevere been in olymic games, but become champions as owners of chariots & horses (Idot (talk) 02:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC))

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Women's sportsFemale participation in sportRelisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) There is no such thing as "women's sport(s)".Curb Chain (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Support some sort of rename. This article is not about women's sports (ie. heptathalon, softball, ringette, rythmic gymnastics), it's about women and girls in sport. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is by far the most recognizable and common term for the subject. Powers T 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
The problem is with ambiguity. Women's sports would indicate that only women play or the sport has a least a characteristic that makes women play it exclusivley. This article is about the participation of women in sport. As such, I know of know sports that makes women play a sport that men can't.Curb Chain (talk) 18:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Right, there are no such sports, which is why the term isn't ambiguous. Only the least educated reader imaginable would think that there was such a thing as a sport that only women could play. Powers T 20:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support but with plural. Title sort of out of date I guess. Marcus Qwertyus 00:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's a matter of Anglo English use and General American use. I don't matter if it is plural or singular either.Curb Chain (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME. The suggested new name is neither concise nor easily recognizable nor natural nor in common use. Google hits definitely supports the current title as is. "Female participation in sport(s)" gets less than 116,000 Google hits [1]; "Women's sports" gets over 6 million [2]. Softlavender (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Google search returns are little more an outrageous guess. Google books is better but you still have to flip to the last search return to get the real number. (yes this is an template message but user is tired of telling people this). Marcus Qwertyus 07:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
When the difference is that profound, exact figures aren't necessary. =) Powers T 14:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
He means that google numbers are statistics and cannot definitively judge the adoption of a label.Curb Chain (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Support The suggested name is a good way to neutrally address topics that are far from settled (as evidenced by continuous Title IX court cases and legislative updates). The name is long and perhaps unrecognizable but the sentiment is accurate.Women's sports can redirect to the new title. Roger6r (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Conciseness and recognizability are two of our bedrock principles of article naming. They should not be dismissed so casually. Powers T 18:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I will adjust my wording the next time I dismiss something after careful deliberation. Upon careful deliberation, I agree with 65.94.47.63's discussion of the ambiguity infused in the term 'Women's sports.' I support the move because of my opinion that the bedrock principle of WP:PRECISION outweighs the principles of conciseness and recognizability in this particular case. Roger6r (talk) 19:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. What about Women in sports? It's concise, unambiguous, and gets rid of the awkward possessive. It gets 1.3 million Google hits. Kaldari (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose while I agree that the proposed name is more politically correct, the current name is by far the WP:COMMONNAME. And that is by far the most important concern here. Arsenikk (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Apart from WP:COMMONNAME, this is the 21st century, and the word-game excesses of the 20th are now irrelevant. Andrewa (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2011 (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.

Proposed sections[edit]

I have downgraded the status of this sports page to Start class. Only History is comprehensively addressed.

Suggestions for additional sections:

  • Olympic Sports
   Description of the Olympic sports with female participation
   Subsection: Olympic Ski Jumping, the latest addition to women's Olympic sports.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Women's sports. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)