Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Athens 2004 report available!
Hey all! some of you probably noticed that I've been absent - or at least not contributing as much as before - from this project. It's just that I've got myself a job a month ago and I don't have the time I used to, anymore.
But I haven't lost my interest, and that's why I've returned, briefly, to warn you that the Athens 2004 Summer Olympics Official Report is already available online at LA84 Foundation's portal. Finally, this project can correctly update, develop and substantiate the 2004 Games-related articles!
Have fun! See you around. Parutakupiu 17:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- I came with exactly the same announcement, so briefly: sorry for my lack of contribution as school is taking up most of my time, I look forward to continuing here, the reports are finally available! Parutakupiu, you beat me out! I'll be back eventually! Jared (t) 22:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I wish I had seen the report before announcing its online availability... I was also shocked to see how little data it had concerning official results. It'll be more helpful to expand the non-sportive content about the Games themselves than for anything else, really. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- You can find complete report and results on this site mohsen1248 (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Guideline
Is there anybody interested to build up and/or start a discussion about a guideline? There is still many confusion and Beijing is "only" 268 days left! Doma-w 02:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Guideline on what/how? I definitely think there should be a 'plan' on how to tackle Beijing coverage/writeup to ensure sources are added along with new material, etc. Maybe a page with a list of articles and style guidelines, with a view to getting them GA/FA soon after the event. Paulbrock (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we talked about this a few months ago (when this wikiproject was more active), and the idea was that we would focus on cleaning up the 2004 articles and point to those as the "gold standard" for 2008. We are almost certainly going to get a very large surge of new editors who will work on Olympic articles for a couple of weeks before going back to their regular editing areas, and we need to ensure that they keep the consistency with what we've already done. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
- I thought this was discussed before, but it seems that someone has put the overall Olympic template at the bottom of each of the sport pages of the 2004 Olympics. Maybe the other sport pages from other editions of the Games have been affected as well. I think this is a terrible idea. It clutters up the page and it really not necessary to jump from one edition of the games to the other. I think that template needs to be deleted from each of the sport pages. The problem is, the three templates have been bundled together, and I have no idea of how to seperate them. Could someone tell me how, and I just go about deleting them. For an example of what I am talking about, look at Basketball at the 2004 Summer Olympics. If we are going to use the 2004 Olympics as the "gold standard" then it should be done right! Perakhantu (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we talked about this a few months ago (when this wikiproject was more active), and the idea was that we would focus on cleaning up the 2004 articles and point to those as the "gold standard" for 2008. We are almost certainly going to get a very large surge of new editors who will work on Olympic articles for a couple of weeks before going back to their regular editing areas, and we need to ensure that they keep the consistency with what we've already done. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Debate re-opened for Olympic athlete notability
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete) for a new discussion on whether or not every Olympic athlete satisfies notability requirements for individual articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics (unofficial) at WP:PROD
Football at the 1896 Summer Olympics (unofficial) has been prodded. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a courtesy call to let you know that Magdalena Miklos is at AfD at the moment. nancy (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Medal tally
I suggest there should be an official and clear-cut guideline/rule/policy on what should appear on a medal tally section for Olympics and all multi-sport events articles. For example, in the 2007 SEA Games, I had to "compromise" on a medal tally with a "medal target" row -- not only it is ugly but "medal targets" aren't supposedly mentioned in the same vein as the medal tallies.
How about a using universal template (like Template:RankedMedalTable that will be applied to all multi-sport events articles? --Howard the Duck 06:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that's precisely what we do for Olympic articles, and that was why I created that template in the first place — to ensure consistency. That "medal target" section for the SEA Games is stupid and ugly, and I would fight hard to keep that off any Olympic article!! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- You might as well keep that off all multi-sport event articles.... also these multi-sport event articles still have differing appearances for their medal tallies, at least for the main article, some of them use different icons for the medals (see 2007 Pan-American Games), I think that should be standardized too. Also, the sorting via golds or overall (avoid the use of rowspan) should also be implemented. --Howard the Duck 03:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Olympic event articles up for inclusion in release version of wikipedia
I have recently nominated all the base articles for events recognized by the International Olympic Committee for inclusion in a future release version of wikipedia at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations/Sports recognized by the IOC. Several are already included in one or more release versions, but others are I think of a quality right now that they are unlikely to be included. I am thinking particularly of Air sports, Boules, Dancesport, Finswimming, Jeu de paume, Motorcycle sport, Mountain bike racing, Powerboating, Roller sport, Roque, and Water motorsports, particularly the last. If the members of this project were to be able to bring these articles up to at least a good Start-Class level, I think that would improve their chances of inclusion dramatically. Also, particularly for the Water motorsports page, if it would be possible to add a few paragraphs regarding each of the listed sports to the article, with links to the main articles on those sports, I think that would help the chances of that article's being included dramatically. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
1910s Olympics images source
There are several PD-US images of Olympians from around the world from the 1912 Olympics in a set posted by the Library of Congress [1]. Someone should look through the entire set of 1500 photos. Most are not Olympians but many are. Many of them could use comments about who they are. Some of the comments left use the Wikipedia article as a source. I spot checked some, and most of the people pictured there have no image in Wikipedia. It's an unbelievable set, so enjoy! I know I am enjoying it! Royalbroil 18:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics
European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (2nd nomination). Thank you. Paulbrock (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Portal
As someone who's worked on other portals, but has just being some work in Olympic topics (and just joined this project), I'm curious if there has been any discussion of raising the main portal to featured status. If so, is anyone currently working on this? If not, is anyone interested in working on this as a joint project? Carom (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Missing Olympians
- The University of Florida has put over 125 athletes into the Olympics. Unfortunately less than half even have profiles created for them. If the members could help create profile for these athletes we would be very happy. This is the list where you can find all of the Olympians. List of University of Florida people, please be sure to scroll down to the bottom. Jccort (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Um, there are about 110,000 former Olympians, and there are nowhere near that number of articles. Why don't you WP:Be bold and create some articles yourself? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have easily created 20 so far. Just keep in perspective that UF is easily one of the strongest pipe-lines into the Olympics. I will continue to add more and more, but if you guys could give me a hand we would be very grateful. Thanks Jccort (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just keep in perspective that you are talking about 0.1% of all Olympians, so I would dispute the "easily one of the strongest pipe-lines" claim. Far more Olympians came out of Sportvereinigung (SV) Dynamo, for example. Be aware of any systemic bias you are introducing. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying. I also didn't mean to imply that UF was the best ever, but it seriously has to be high on the list for a university (Stanford is probably higher though). I will do my part in creating these athletes, so that people from the USA, Florida, and UF Alumni can appreciate their great accomplishments. I am also particularly interested in showcasing how UF has helped to train International Olympians as well. It is however difficult to find sources for some of these athletes. Jccort (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Jccort, I think all Andrwsc is saying is that there are many important athletes out there that don't have pages, and creating pages for all of these, not just subsets at a time, is on our to-do list. Having brought that up, I will be sure to look at that page specifically and see what I can do within the scope of this project. Jared (t) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Ribbon for Olympic Barnstar
FYI. There is now a ribbon equivalent to the Olympic Barnstar if anyone is interested. Chris (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Norway at the 1994 Winter Olympics
It's says that Norway took 10 golds but only seven are show.
Australia flag
Could someone please change the flag for Australia at the 1904 Summer Olympics? I do not know how to do this. The flag which should be used is Image:Flag of Australia 1903-1909.svg --Astrokey44 22:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to whoever has fixed it --Astrokey44 08:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Country codes and article names
I'd like to get some opinions on how best to display results for "historic nations". For example, Benin (BEN) used to be Dahomey (DAH) in 1972. Right now, we would show results as:
Joe Bloggs (DAH)
The template uses "DAH" for the country code, and the wikilinked article is Dahomey at the 1972 Summer Olympics.
On the other hand, we have results for British Guiana, but the nation was renamed as Guyana before the introduction of country codes. Therefore, we use GUY for all results. The templates have been modified to correctly link to the right article name:
Joe Bloggs (GUY) → links to British Guiana at the 1948 Summer Olympics
Joe Bloggs (GUY) → links to Guyana at the 1972 Summer Olympics
On a related note, we also use NED for every instance of the Netherlands, although they famously used HOL for many years.
The end result is a bit inconsistent. Therefore, my question is: should we use the current country code for all past results, consistently? The following nations would be affected:
- Burma (BIR) → Myanmar (MYA)
- Ceylon (CEY) → Sri Lanka (SRI)
- Dahomey (DAH) → Benin (BEN)
- British Honduras (HBR) → Belize (BIZ)
- Northern Rhodesia (NRH) → Zambia (ZAM)
- Rhodesia (RHO) → Zimbabwe (ZIM)
- United Arab Republic (UAR) → Egypt (EGY)
- Upper Volta (VOL) → Burkina Faso (BUR)
- Zaire (ZAI) → DR Congo (COD)
This list only includes name changes, not country changes. We would still use URS, YUG, FRG, GDR, TCH, etc. for results from those obsolete nations.
Note that I am proposing that the article names would still be Burma at the 1948 Summer Olympics, Ceylon at the 1948 Summer Olympics, Zaire at the 1988 Summer Olympics, etc. but the country codes BIR, CEY, ZAI, etc. would disappear, to be replaced by MYA, SRI, COD, etc. on our event results pages. Or do we still want to see the old codes used?
Also note that I have tweaked the infobox code to support the display of older non-standard country codes. Per the detailed notes I listed on List of IOC country codes, there were a lot of pre-standard codes used in addition to standard ones that changed, and I thought it would be useful to show them. Take a look at Algeria at the 1968 Summer Olympics for an example. This technique could also be used in conjunction with the possible changes per this discussion thread, so for example, every page for Sri Lanka/Ceylon would show SRI in the infobox as the country code, but the 1948–1972 pages would also show "(CEY) used at these Games)".
What do you think? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with basically everything you just said. It would make a lot of sense to ensure that countries that have changed their names and thus their IOC codes over time remain under the same umbrella. In that regard, it would be ideal to use the same code for every year, and then qualify it on specific pages or where needed to show that the code was in fact different for those specific games. Its always a good idea to standardize. Jared (t) 01:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- In general I think we had to differ between the reasons of the changes for the codes. I think when the reason was "the host nation's language", than we can reflect this like it is now shown e.g. on the Algeria at the 1968 Summer Olympics page. Because I don't want to use the code "EUA" for the United States in 1968 or GIA for Japan in 1960! But I think it is necessary to reflect other reasons like for Iran. Here is the reason for the change of the code a change of the country name. I have my problems to see the code IRI for Iran in the years 1956–1988. It is historical incorrect to show IRI, because the code IRI was unknown in that years and the country name was not "Islamic Republic of Iran" which was the reason to change the code. Also South Africa is an example where we had to use different codes.
- Or have a look at that problem from the other side: What do you think will happen when the country code for e.g. France will change to e.g. FRC. Will we then change ALL pages from 1896 to 2004 from the code FRA to FRC?? I don't think so... For the list above I do not want to use the currect country code, I would prefer to add also footnotes that their where other codes in use over the years. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a consensus? I can only see that again nobody is interested. Doma-w (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Page name
Which style do we prefer?
- 1.Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 4x400 metre relay (whithout spaces) or Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 400 metre relay (with spaces)
- 2.Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 50 kilometre walk or Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 50 km walk
Thanks and kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't there someplace that says to avoid UK/US English inconsistencies if possible? I don't know how that maps to a debate about abbreviations vs the actual term; but, I would favor km. Neier (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been looking through the MOS to find some guidance:
- For the spacing, I think WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has guidance for punctuation around ranges of numbers, preferring an unspaced en-dash (e.g. 50–60%). I'm thinking that a similar situation exists here, so the "x" should be unspaced. In article text, I like to use the
×character, as in 4×400, but of course, the article title cannot use that Unicode character and must use a regular lower-case x. - For the units, WP:Naming conventions#Prefer spelled-out phrases to abbreviations would seem to imply that we should use "kilometre" in the article title, but of course, incoming wikilinks can look like
[[Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 50 kilometre walk|50 km]]if the rest of the context is clear.
- For the spacing, I think WP:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) has guidance for punctuation around ranges of numbers, preferring an unspaced en-dash (e.g. 50–60%). I'm thinking that a similar situation exists here, so the "x" should be unspaced. In article text, I like to use the
- As far as the UK/US difference for metre/meter, I think we go with the IOC usage, which is metre, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been looking through the MOS to find some guidance:
As a side note, this might also apply to the ISSF shooting events. When I created the event articles, I used the abbreviated and capitalized versions (i.e. 10 m Air Rifle etc) that are used in the official ISSF rules. None of them have been moved, but in adding information to various related articles (such as Olympic subpages or shooter bios), contributors have often opted for "metre" or "meter", as well as for lower-case titles. Of course, consistency would be better. Following this debate with great interest. -- Jao (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- This pdf-link uses different "names" for the men's events (5,000m) and women's events (5'000m)... To me this link is not helpful.
Which style do we prefer?
- 3.Rowing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's eight (without "s") or Rowing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's eights (with "s")
- 4.Boxing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Flyweight (without Men's) or Boxing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's flyweight (with Men's)
Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- There are >300 events for the Summer Games, so it may take a long time to get consensus on all of them! I thought someone (Jared?) had composed a list of all proposed article names, so maybe we should dig that out again and comment on the whole list at once. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- YES!! I knew this would come in handy some day!!! I have the list of 2004 events and the 2008 events. It would be a good idea to choose at one time. I'm fairly sure both of those pages are accurate. Jared (t) 23:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- GREAT! I only had a quick look at the list (it's late in my time zone...), but I have my first question: the swimming relays have spaces before and after the "x" but the athletics relays have no spaces! Do we really want these different styles? (I do not prefer one or the other style, I only want be sure) Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
1928 Summer Olympics medal count
I have tried to improve the list article 1928 Summer Olympics medal count. I am thinking of nominating the article at Wikipedia:Featured lists, but I would like to receive some feedback from this project first. Thanks, Ilse@ 13:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ilse. Personally, I'd prefer to submit it to a peer-review so that it can be further improved without being under the direct scope of approval for featured page. If you see editors are not that interested in reviewing, you can ask members from this project to have a look at it (if they haven't done it already) and make comments and suggestions. After all this, then I'd nominate for featured list. Parutakupiu (talk)
- Thank you for you response. I decided to directly nominate the article at Wikipedia:Featured lists. – Ilse@ 18:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The featured list candidate 1928 Summer Olympics medal count has undergone some changes since its nomination. I would like to invite you to support or oppose the candidacy on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count. Thank you, Ilse@ 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Usage of self-created pictograms
I think, that usage of this and similar self-created pictograms is appropriate only in general "Olympic <Event>" (e.g. Olympic Swimming) related articles and templates. But not at pages and templates related to "Olympic <Event> at <NNNN> Olympics". Because there were official pictograms for each event developed for each Olympics (since some time). And self-created pictograms should not "replace" official ones in the webspace (Wikipedia is a large contributor to this space as everybody knows). For example, I believe, such pictograms should be removed from Template:SwimmingAt2004SummerOlympics and all similar ones. Cmapm (talk) 14:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the "official" pictograms are non-free images, and Wikipedia fair-use policy would prohibit their use on those templates. The options are no pictogram at all, or a free image, and the consensus here seems to be that the free image is better than nothing. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and from these two I should choose "no pictogram at all" for articles and templates with the feature mentioned above. There, however, could be a section on the official pictogram authors and design in respective main articles with a link to official report from the OrgC, for example. And could you give me a link, where a consensus mentioned by you had been reached, please? Cmapm (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- The flowchart on WP:Consensus is applicable. Those edits were made months ago with no reversion and no modification, so by definition, that is the current consensus. But consensus can change, so if you go ahead and remove all those pictograms, we would undoubtedly have a discussion here about it. Maybe then the new consensus would be to remove Parutakupiu's icons from all those templates, but maybe not.
- I like your idea of a new article (or section) for the pictograms unique for each Games, starting with 1972, I think. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK,I'll consider removing them from there after I read more on them and on the origins of Olympic pictograms concept. I'm mostly working on swimming now, so perhaps adding such section at least into swimming at Olympics articles since 1964 will be the scope of my edits in the nearest future. Cmapm (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also consider our intended use of Parutakupiu's pictograms. It was never to imply that they were the "real" ones actually used at the Games; it was to serve as a navigation aid for browsing through the Olympic wiki. For example, we talked about putting those icons on all the "Nation at the year Olympics" pages to help readers navigate to the appropriate "Sport at the year Olympics" pages. For example, see what British West Indies at the 1960 Summer Olympics now looks like. We also talked about making each sport section collapsible, so the default view when you open the page would be a grouped set of pictograms and headers, making it easier to find a sport of interest. Using those consistently might be a big benefit to tie together all these thousands of pages we manage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Without any doubts British West Indies at the 1960 Summer Olympics looks nice, however there is one big "but". If I google on 1984 swimming olympic pictogram I'd like to see those designed for the Olympics, but I see Parutakupiu's pictograms big and on first places instead. As a schoolboy (for instance), I'd believe, that it is genuine Olympic pictogram. So, if not decided to be removed from many pages, at least some footnote or "ALT" html tag should be for those pictograms. Cmapm (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions for the alt text? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Sample picture of the event (unofficial)"? Something like this should be added by someone. And as for myself, as a minimal measure, I'll add a note and a link to corresponding official pictograms into each description of each of those pictograms. After that, well, I'll not remove any of those pictograms from articles and templates unless someone supports my POV. But my POV is still that I'd personally prefer removing them from pages pointed out in my first message. By the way, sorry, first pictograms were introduced in 1948 originally on tickets. Cmapm (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have any suggestions for the alt text? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Without any doubts British West Indies at the 1960 Summer Olympics looks nice, however there is one big "but". If I google on 1984 swimming olympic pictogram I'd like to see those designed for the Olympics, but I see Parutakupiu's pictograms big and on first places instead. As a schoolboy (for instance), I'd believe, that it is genuine Olympic pictogram. So, if not decided to be removed from many pages, at least some footnote or "ALT" html tag should be for those pictograms. Cmapm (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Also consider our intended use of Parutakupiu's pictograms. It was never to imply that they were the "real" ones actually used at the Games; it was to serve as a navigation aid for browsing through the Olympic wiki. For example, we talked about putting those icons on all the "Nation at the year Olympics" pages to help readers navigate to the appropriate "Sport at the year Olympics" pages. For example, see what British West Indies at the 1960 Summer Olympics now looks like. We also talked about making each sport section collapsible, so the default view when you open the page would be a grouped set of pictograms and headers, making it easier to find a sport of interest. Using those consistently might be a big benefit to tie together all these thousands of pages we manage. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- OK,I'll consider removing them from there after I read more on them and on the origins of Olympic pictograms concept. I'm mostly working on swimming now, so perhaps adding such section at least into swimming at Olympics articles since 1964 will be the scope of my edits in the nearest future. Cmapm (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and from these two I should choose "no pictogram at all" for articles and templates with the feature mentioned above. There, however, could be a section on the official pictogram authors and design in respective main articles with a link to official report from the OrgC, for example. And could you give me a link, where a consensus mentioned by you had been reached, please? Cmapm (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Olympic athlete notability
Is there anyone interested to bring back James Barker (athlete) who was surprisingly redirected after this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete)? Some new info was found in a new source so the article can look like [3]. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 15:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Torch Relay
In case anyone *hasn't* spotted it 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay is undergoing heavy editing at the moment, particularly around the protests. Paulbrock (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Assessment template
Template:OlympicsWikiProject seems to have a problem. See Template_talk:OlympicsWikiProject#Broken? for info. Paulbrock (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
?
Nobody is interested in a guideline or page names. Nobody is interested in Mr. Barker. Nobody is interested to improve the list article 1928 Summer Olympics medal count to a featured list.
Does the WikiProject Olympics still exist? Doma-w (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- It sure does exist! How else would you explain the recent work of Andrwsc in promoting two Olympic list to featured status?
- The thing is this project is going through a lag phase, as result of the absence or more rare contributions of some editors which used to contribute a lot to it (e.g. me and Jared). If you look carefully, we may have many members but very few of them are really active during non-Olympic years. The few that were (I include myself in those) worked very hard and spent a lot of their free time to help develop pages about a subject that is HUGE! It's really difficult for such few editors to get all the hundreds of pages up to a good level.
- If you think that some pages could be improved and you have the capacity, don't ask permission or for others to do it, be bold and get your hands dirty!
- — Cheers! Parutakupiu (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, of course this was not my question... Sometimes I am very bold, so I have created a few pages. I do not need help in creating or improving pages, but sometimes it would be very helpful to have a community. I do not want to decide the page names or the guideline alone. Only a few words if we want 4x100 or 4 x 100? Or in the case of Mr. Barker. An Olympic competitor was deleted (sorry redirected!), but the Olympic project was not interested. So I tried to imporve the article, still no interest. Only a few words what we want? (I still do not know what must be done to bring him back, if we want to bring him back!!) My problem is, that users from outside the project decides for us. Also I am sorry for user:Ilse@. This user worked to bring the 1928 Summer Olympics medal count to a featured list, but without our support this was impossible. And I think this user lost interest in wikiOlympics...
I know, that we are only a few editors, but why it is not possible to work together or to support each other? Doma-w (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Newsletter
Would a newsletter be a good idea. I would think that there would be a lot to report on, on Wikipedia and real life. Basketball110Talk 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we have the template {{WikiProject Olympics announcements}} which contains news brief about the project, so this might be a good starting point if we were to pursue something like this. Jared (t) 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games
I've replaced the WP:China talk page banner with this projects' since it seems more appropriate. Also, this projects' banner has the peer review parameter, but I do not see a PR section within this Wikiproject... so this article has a ongoing PR here. « ₣M₣ » 17:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Badminton
I no way to see where the list of badminton players that will be take part as it publish by BWF, so i go back and check, nothing there. So, User:Mohsen1248 always claim he is right, i see unofficial list which is violate the WP:VERIFY and WP:FUTURE, a "dummy list" took from non-BWF publish. So, please, some one can comment about this. --Aleenf1 09:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The BWF has published its May 1 rankings. That's as official as it gets. Applying the qualification criteria is mechanical from there (with the exception of the Tripartite invitation spots; this should be noted in the article). It should be noted that these are qualifying players, not necessarily those who will play, however. This also means that all those qualified should be listed; the tables should be modified keeping that in mind. For instance, in the women's singles, China has earned three quota spots and could fill them with any combination of Xie, Zhang, Lu, or Zhu.
- Also, please do consider using article talk pages to discuss issues with other contributors. I notice that the talk page for the article you linked to is conspicuously red-linked. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Olympic medal counts - potential Featured topic?
Several project members have been working on these lists and I think there could be a potential FT there. If a bunch of us working on them, we could be ready by the start of the Beijing games (although remember not to flood WP:FLC with too many at a time - 4 or 5 max) Having a Summer Olympics medal count would be a good start because although there are more than the Winter Olympics medal counts, there are less short ones (and the smaller lists are harder to pass) and we already have one FL (1976), one FLC (2004), and one that's basically there but needs to sort some things out first (1928). Although the problem is that we need a main article - any suggestions? -- Scorpion0422 14:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good idea. I'm willing to help out (although not being a member of this project.) I'll do 2000 Summer Olympics medal count, 1996 Summer Olympics medal count, 1988 Summer Olympics medal count, 1992 Winter Olympics medal count, 1988 Winter Olympics medal count and possibly more. Qst (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess All-time Olympic Games medal count could be our main article, it does summarize the topic, but does need some work. I'll do 1960. -- Scorpion0422 14:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What work is required on that list? I had spent a huge amount of time compiling the numbers, and writing all the detailed footnotes, so I don't think anything other than some copyedit of the prose lead is really necessary, perhaps. What do you think is wrong with it? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant was that chartwise, it looks really good, but the text could use some expanding (so that it better summarizes the topic). A couple non-Olympic committee sources would also be helpful. -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guarantee that any outside source will have numbers that are different than those, and that is a big problem. This topic is treading dangerously close to original research... I'm not sure we want it to be a featured topic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean the main list or the individual medal count lists? -- Scorpion0422 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly the main list, as outside sources tend to take liberties with their totalling algorithms, such as combining USSR and Russia, combining all the Germanies, combining Yugoslavia with Serbia, etc., and for obvious reasons, we have rejected that here. Also, even the IOC lists are not immune to error, so there are some instances where we have taken the official report for the Games to be top authority. For example, they had a skater in 1908 listed from GER instead of GBR, so the totals for those two countries are incorrect. They forgot some medalists in 1920 equestrian events, and more. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to remind everyone that there was and is only one Germany, and no matter how many German states or IOC codes there were, "Germanies" refers to a Revolta de les Germanies in Spain. We don't call the American Civil War a war among Americas either.-- Matthead Discuß 00:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly the main list, as outside sources tend to take liberties with their totalling algorithms, such as combining USSR and Russia, combining all the Germanies, combining Yugoslavia with Serbia, etc., and for obvious reasons, we have rejected that here. Also, even the IOC lists are not immune to error, so there are some instances where we have taken the official report for the Games to be top authority. For example, they had a skater in 1908 listed from GER instead of GBR, so the totals for those two countries are incorrect. They forgot some medalists in 1920 equestrian events, and more. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do you mean the main list or the individual medal count lists? -- Scorpion0422 16:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I guarantee that any outside source will have numbers that are different than those, and that is a big problem. This topic is treading dangerously close to original research... I'm not sure we want it to be a featured topic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- What I meant was that chartwise, it looks really good, but the text could use some expanding (so that it better summarizes the topic). A couple non-Olympic committee sources would also be helpful. -- Scorpion0422 16:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so maybe a FT is a tad out of reach, but working on all of the medal count pages certainly doesn't hurt. -- Scorpion0422 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about out of reach. It's good to set the bar high. I'll work from the ground up, starting with 1896. BTW, does anyone have a good reference for the 'mixed teams' that the IOC recognizes for the early olympics? I've been working on 1896, and that's the only chunk that is really unreferenced now. Marrio (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- this may help. It doesn't sat who is in the team, but it does explain it a bit. -- Scorpion0422 12:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- What reference do you need? Between the IOC medal database (for the medal winners) and the official reports, you can find all the published mixed team results. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:22, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just needed a reference that explained the idea of a mixed team itself. Scorpion's source does that, although tangentially. Marrio (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, in all my time scouring through official reports, Olympic Reviews, etc., I don't think I've come across something that specifically explains the idea. The old reports from 1896, 1900, and 1904 often simply listed the winners by name; the nationality of each person was not as important as it is now. The use of ZZX in the IOC medal database clearly implies how the IOC wants to handle these medals, but I don't remember seeing anything that explicitely stated so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, so are the descriptions of what a mixed team is original research? Or is scorpion's source, which mentions them tangentially and uses a different phrase to describe them, enough to use? - Marrio (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think there is any original research here. The phrase "mixed team" does show up in other documents too—for example, I was just looking at the Sweden and Olympism article from a 1978 Olympic Review that described the "mixed team" of Swedes and Danes in the 1900 tug of war. The IOC medal database clearly separates medals from the mixed teams from the constituent nations (i.e. no "partial" medals and no double counting), and as the most authoritive source for these articles, their website clearly uses the phrase "Mixed team". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree with Andrwsc in regard to the IOC website as "most authoritative source" as their disclaimer clearly says that their input is taken from the "Official Report", and "the information is not yet fully standardised". Basically, that means this is work in progress of some web designers and HTML coders rather than supervised by the IOC, or peer reviewed like publications of historians. How about using the International Society of Olympic Historians (ISOH) as source instead? For example, the IOC website can't make up its mind about the all-German team of 1956 to 1964, as both "United Team of Germany (1956,1960,1964) EUA" and also "UNIFIED TEAM OF GERMANY" appears. The IOC website applies the code EUA to the Germans, even though according to the Journal of Olympic History JOURNAL OF OLYMPIC HISTORY 12(May 2004)2 - p. 28 - IOC AND OCOG ABBREVIATIONS FOR NOCS, by Bill Mallon & Ove Karlsson, the code EUA was only used in Mexico 1968 - for the USA. And in Oslo 1952, according to the IOC website there were two German teams ranked 5th and 6th, as "5. Federal Republic of Germany (1950-1990, "GER" since) FRG" and "6. Germany GER". Thats hardly a "Most authoritative source". Also, Wikipedia uses original research, camouflaged as "common name", by using the sloppy names West Germany and East Germany, while the IOC website uses "German Democratic Republic (1955-1990) GDR" and "Federal Republic of Germany (1950-1990, "GER" since) FRG". Instead, I recommend to use Germany (West), Germany (East) and Germany (unified team) to make the teams appears next to Germany in alphabetically sorted lists and categories, rather than next to Ecuador, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia. -- Matthead Discuß 00:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't think there is any original research here. The phrase "mixed team" does show up in other documents too—for example, I was just looking at the Sweden and Olympism article from a 1978 Olympic Review that described the "mixed team" of Swedes and Danes in the 1900 tug of war. The IOC medal database clearly separates medals from the mixed teams from the constituent nations (i.e. no "partial" medals and no double counting), and as the most authoritive source for these articles, their website clearly uses the phrase "Mixed team". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Right, so are the descriptions of what a mixed team is original research? Or is scorpion's source, which mentions them tangentially and uses a different phrase to describe them, enough to use? - Marrio (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, in all my time scouring through official reports, Olympic Reviews, etc., I don't think I've come across something that specifically explains the idea. The old reports from 1896, 1900, and 1904 often simply listed the winners by name; the nationality of each person was not as important as it is now. The use of ZZX in the IOC medal database clearly implies how the IOC wants to handle these medals, but I don't remember seeing anything that explicitely stated so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just needed a reference that explained the idea of a mixed team itself. Scorpion's source does that, although tangentially. Marrio (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about out of reach. It's good to set the bar high. I'll work from the ground up, starting with 1896. BTW, does anyone have a good reference for the 'mixed teams' that the IOC recognizes for the early olympics? I've been working on 1896, and that's the only chunk that is really unreferenced now. Marrio (talk) 11:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so maybe a FT is a tad out of reach, but working on all of the medal count pages certainly doesn't hurt. -- Scorpion0422 16:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
←Current IOC data is certainly the most authoritative source for medal tables, but it is not infalliable. Those are not contradictory statements. I have pointed out several instances where there are mistakes in their database (such as Dorothy Greenhough-Smith's bronze in figure skating at the 1908 Summer Olympics), but with 15000 medals to keep track of, their accurary rate is quite high. Certainly, using official reports as the primary source for medal counts has one fundamental problem—these numbers are not static. Medals can be taken away (e.g. Marion Jones) or added (e.g. Sylvie Fréchette and Jim Thorpe) years later, and entire events can have their medal status changed decades later, such as curling at the 1924 Winter Olympics and art competitions at the Summer Olympics. The IOC medal database is the most actively maintained contemporary source for official medal counts, and has far less errors than any other source I have found. Second, you are confused with respect to country codes. You are mixing two concepts: what codes were used at the Games at the time, and what codes are used by the IOC today. Country codes weren't really standardized until the 1972 Games, so I don't know what point you are trying to make for Germany from 1956–1964. Clearly EUA is a code created by the IOC to describe that unique situation in Olympic history, and as far as we can tell, that code was created decades after the actual events. As to your last point, you'll see that East and West Germany are sorted next to each other in almost every large list of nations, such as 1972 Summer Olympics#Participating nations and Template:NOCin1972SummerOlympics (just like North Korea and South Korea both under K, by the way). Are you not just looking at the table on All-time Olympic Games medal count and extrapolating that obsevation to every instance where we have a list of nations? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Addendum: I noticed that categories like Category:Nations at the 1972 Summer Olympics had N/S Korea sorted properly, but not E/W Germany, so I just fixed all of them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- I had fixed the lists of participants accordingly [4], and now have also put the German Saarland alongside Germany in the 1952 Summer games. Regarding the alltime count, I strongly suggest that the German teams appear next to each other, and that at least GER, EUA and FRG are combined to a single GER entry, as only GDR (and SAA) were separate, competing teams. This was discussed many times, and quite patiently from my side, even though the list violates WP:NOR. Still insisting on listing 4 different "Germanies" in this article, even though some sources also add the GDR to a single German total, has to be considered as hostile to Germans, and to sportsmanship in general. The "Rank" column, in which Germans occupy 4 places, and Czechs/Bohemians 3, should be removed altogether, as it is pointless bookkeeping. The totals in the list are unsourced, claiming that the IOC codes back them up can not be accepted as the IOC does not compile all time counts at all. The list has to represent also the lists of the media which will soon resurface for the 2008 games. And when Soviet medals are added to the Russian ones, this has to be reported, too. This can easily be done with additional rows. -- Matthead Discuß 22:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
We've all got to try to keep a closer eye on and clean up the controversy section because it's gotten kind of out of hand. Some of the stuff being added doesn't have anything to do with the Olympics. In the boycotts section, I just removed a bunch of people who either are going or are not attending for non-boycott reasons so they shouldn't take up space in the section. -- Scorpion0422 02:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I completely agree. I used to look out for that page a lot, long before I got caught up in other outside responsibilities, but I've noticed that that section is just growing rampant. Most of the stuff in there should really just be scaled back, because it's ridiculous that that is now the focus of the page. Jared (t) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've been bold, and split that section into a separate article, following WP:SS. Bluap (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Arts competitions on medals tables
Given the various people working on getting the medals tables to FL status, we'll need to resolve an issue brought up under the failed FL nomination for 1928 Summer Olympics medal count (nomination discussion here. The question is whether the medals awarded in arts competitions should have charts on the medal count pages or on separate pages, and if included on the medal count pages what sort of disclaimer or description of controversy about their inclusion should be present. My personal opinion is that they should be included, simply because medals were awarded at the time, regardless of their importance or official recognition now, but that we need to write a well-sourced disclaimer about their not being recognized by the IOC. Marrio (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'll restate my position — I strongly oppose including the counts specifically on the "xxxx Olympics medal count" pages, mostly because there will be no references that include them in a tabular total of medals. I don't think these can be featured lists with some borderline original research like that. Note that I am not opposed to the medals themselves being properly discussed in the right places; after all, I spent the time to create seven new articles in Category:Art competitions at the Olympic Games and link them from the appropriate navigation boxes (e.g. {{EventsAt1928SummerOlympics}}) so that they are easily found from all the sport pages too. My suggestion for the medal count pages is simply to provide a single sentence with wikilink, or put it in a "See also" section. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here: "mostly because there will be no references that include them in a tabular total of medals." Sorry, new to the discussion... - Marrio (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's take the 1928 Games as an example. The official report (downloadable from here) obviously includes all the event results, and even has a "Table of Honour" (pp. 973–986) of the top six results in each event, including the art competitions. This is really our only source from that era, but the document does not include a tabulated medal count. The only sources we have for a tabulated list of medals are the current IOC website and other websites. None of those modern sources include the art competitions. Therefore, I believe it is straying into original research territory for us to include them on the same page. It's not blatant OR, but it does make me uneasy about it. That's why I advocate the approach of fully documenting those results on pages like Art competitions at the 1928 Summer Olympics (which even includes its own event-specific medal table, by the way, just like Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics and all the other sports), but I think a line has to be drawn against including them on the overall 1928 Games medal count page specifically, especially if you want it to be featured content. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean here: "mostly because there will be no references that include them in a tabular total of medals." Sorry, new to the discussion... - Marrio (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Need ref for List of Olympic host cities
Does anyone have a good reference that encompasses the information in List of Olympic host cities? The ref I have in there is not desirable for a host of reasons (it doesn't mention the cancelled Olympics, doesn't include all information in the list, etc.) - Marrio (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Great Britain at the Olympics
The majority of Olympic articles on Great Britain are titled Great Britain at the xxxx Olympics but up until 1908 the name is more complicated. The official report of the 1896 only refers to England and 1904 for only refers to Ireland (the only two winners came from Ireland). During the 1908 Olympics they competed as the United Kingdom as shown by a photograph on page 48 of the official report. My preference would to move them to Great Britain in line with all the other articles. Any other opinions before I do the move? josh (talk) 12:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Before you do, I do remember somewhere in our archives that there was a discussion about this, and it was decided, albeit probably quickly, that it would be better to have consistency across the board rather than split the GB pages. I can't really elaborate on this, but I do distinctly remember this happening. Jared (t) 14:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- There is consensus from this WikiProject that "Great Britain" should be used for all articles. We agree because 43 of the 45 official Games reports since 1896 use just "Great Britain". (The two exceptions are 1908, which used "United Kingdom" and 1956 summer, which used "Great Britain and Northern Ireland".) All contemporary sources use just "Great Britain". However, despite all this, there was a small group of vocal editors who insisted that because the proper name of the nation is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (or ..."and Ireland" through the 1924 Games), that the Olympic articles must use a slightly shortened form of the full name instead of the common name. Therefore, the articles had been located under the longer names until a couple of months ago. I had noticed that some editors had renamed a few of them, but not all. A couple of weeks ago, I had renamed most of the rest, but not the complete set, as you noticed. From my perspective, and I think from all the folks who regularly work on Olympic articles, that we strongly prefer "Great Britain" consistently for all articles. There is no need to over-politicize this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I attempted to move the 1908 article to Great Britain a couple of months ago (along with a few others) but got reverted. I'll try again with a link to this discussion and see what happens. I'll do the others while I'm at it. josh (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Done 1904 and 1908 but the first two need an administrator to do it as the redirects have been edited. josh (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Wushu Tournament Beijing 2008
hi, I created a page about Wushu Tournament Beijing 2008, i know it is not part of 2008 olympics but i think it is not bad if we link it to 2008 olympics. What do you think ? --Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- As it is not part of the official Games, I don't think we should use any of the standard templates and wikilinks (e.g. don't use
{{flagIOCathlete}}on competitor names to link to pages such as China at the 2008 Summer Olympics), but I think a link to that article from the "See also" section (for example) is not unreasonable. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
2016 Summer Olympics bids
The article 2016 Summer Olympics bids need urgently improvements. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
RfC on a proposal to split "The O2 arena" section of the article, The O2 into a new article.
As the aforementioned article is in the scope of this project, I thought I would let project members know of this RfC and ask users to leave their comments on the article's talk page. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 16:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
If wondering if you guys will allow the split of this page into men's and women's tourneys... --Howard the Duck 06:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would certainly support such a split. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- For previous Games, we have certainly endorsed splitting team sports into four subpages, with names such as:
- Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament — includes the box scores of each game, tournament brackets and group stage summary tables, etc.
- Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's tournament
- Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's team rosters — includes the complete list of all participating athletes grouped by team. See Football at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's team squads and Water polo at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's team rosters for examples.
- Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's team rosters
- The main article would simply be a summary of the entire sport, containing the medal summary (list of medalists for the 3 or 6 medal winning teams) and a final ranking of all participating teams. You would also put
{{BasketballAt2008SummerOlympics}}at the top of those four subpages for navigation. - Now, we've used the phrase "team squads" for previous article names, but while working on some of these pages recently, it struck me that "team squads" makes no sense. Isn't "squad" just a synonym for "team"? What is a "men's team team"? That's why I am suggesting "team rosters". At some point I'd like to rename all the existing articles to the better name unless there are objections. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Now that you mention it... it does looks weird. "Team rosters" all the way! Parutakupiu (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- For previous Games, we have certainly endorsed splitting team sports into four subpages, with names such as:
- I wonder if it it'll be feasible to apply the "<Tournament name> team rosters" for all FIBA-sanctioned tourneys. All of them are named "<Tournament name> team squads" (derived obviously from soccer) but FIBA uses "rosters." Don't even ask about WP:B-BALL since it's hibernating... --Howard the Duck 03:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
1896 Summer Olympics FAR
1896 Summer Olympics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Giants2008 (talk) 20:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
covering the Beijing Olympics on the Main Page
Hello, a group of regulars at Template:In the news, is currently being extraordinarily forward thinking and discussing how to handle coverage of the Beijing Olympics results on the Main Page. Consensus seems to be coalescing around the idea of linking to a separate page for Olympics coverage. We'd be interested to hear if you guys already have something planned that we can integrate in, or if you'd be interested in helping maintain the proposed page. Discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Sports on ITN#Olympics and other multiple-sport events and we welcome your participation. Thanks, BanyanTree 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for this; I have made comments. Another thing, though, that I was thinking about recently, was that it might be a good idea to, somewhere in the community portal, suggest to users that they should try to follow WP:OLY style when editing pages. It would save us a heck of a lot of work, and it would just make sense. I could probably make a nice-sounding message, and I wouldn't put it out until closer to the games, but I just wanted to know if this would be a good idea? I wouldn't want to sound like a jerk, but assuming everyone and their grandmother will probably edit Olympics pages, it wouldn't hurt to leave a nice suggestion. Jared (t) 18:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Wallechinsky's new Summer Olympics book is out!
Heads up. The 2008 edition of the Complete Book of the Olympics (Summer Olympics only) just released in late May. This covers all of the Summer events from the first modern games in Athens, Greece in 1896 to the most recent games in Athens in 2004. I have glanced at it cover to cover and it is a pretty good read though it is loaded with some copy errors. The controversey they had with Swedish Greco-Roman wrestler Mikael Ljungberg and his doping allegations in the 2004 edition has been removed. I contacted the authors about the book earlier today with a few editing issues though I have not received a response. The Winter Olympics book that covers from Chamonix in 1924 to the most recent games at Turin in 2006 should be released toward the end of 2009 in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver if publishing trends hold true. Chris (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I have received a reponse on the copyedits. They will be fixed in time for the next Summer Olympics edition in 2012. Chris (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
'Country at the 2004 Summer Olympics' pages
Hi all, I'm new to the project, but I've managed to turn the 2004 Official report into a database of athletes and results, and I was hoping to update these 'Country at the 2004 Summer Olympics' articles with the official results and entries. However, I wasn't sure if there was any generally accepted template for these articles, or whether there had ever been discussion of one.
Right now, the different sports within the results sections of many of these articles are quite differently formatted, that is for some sports both time/score and placing are shown, for others only placing (even when a time/score is available). Some knockout competitions detail every match by the competitor, some are content with a simple 'defeated in quarterfinals'. Some team events have every match, some only a summary. Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics is unique in that all the results are all written with sentences, something that would be very tiring to do for ≈200 NOCs.
So, I was wondering if there had been any discussion about these pages, and if not, perhaps we can start one before I embark on standardizing and completing them.
Edged (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- For an example of how I hope to standardize these pages, see one of the ones I've done so far, Vietnam at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and compare it to any other pages within this family.
- Edged (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- From my understanding of this project, it is very difficult to write prose for most of our articles due to the sheer fact that most of our sources are just numbers and figures. That said, yes, we do try to make "articles" out of our data and the little written information we can find, so I think in the long run we are looking to have pages written with actual sentences, rather than completely bulleted lists. Now, this is a long process, so it would certainly be within reason, and definitely helpful, to have at least some complete bulleted data on the pages before prose is actually written. (Remember to try to source everything you write, to make it easy for later!) Thanks for undertaking this project, and I'm sure however you decide to do it will be wonderful! Jared (t) 21:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Taekwondo article is having a content dispute (running for over 6 months now) and I wondered if anyone from here might be interested in helping to calm things down and help clean up the article as it has been hacked rather badly with reverts and attempts to merge opposing versions. The main debate is on the origins of the art, the talk page gives a good introduction to the views held by the editors, any help would be most appreciated. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
- The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
- The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
- A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you guys know, I had already taken care of this, in light of the new class being introduced. There's nothing we need to do to get ready for this, other than actually changing some articles, which I had begun to do before. Jared (t) 02:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Too early? (Athlete per sport at 2008 Olympics)
Is it too early to start populating the subcats of Category:Competitors at the 2008 Summer Olympics? It currently lists people who have qualified for the Games, but since the Games haven't started yet, is it too soon? It's categorizing them by something that hasn't happened yet. Kolindigo (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point. Personally, I would say that if the categories are already there, and you happen to be editing an article that the category could be added to, go ahead. Maybe wait off on actually combing each category for athletes to put in it, though. Jared (t) 02:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Once we have completed event results pages, it will be trivially easy to add the categories to the competitors in that event. Just use the "Links on page" option of AWB to make the article list, and add the category to that set of articles. Should take about 5 minutes per event, as they are each finished, I would guess. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2008 event names
I think, before we go any further, it's important to be sure that the list of events I have on my subpage (which should probably be moved to this project, now that I think of it) for the 2008 games is actually what we should be using. I know this was brought up recently, so I think we should just tie up the loose ends (e.g. m vs. metre; Men's tournament vs. Men). I just fixed up Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics to reflect what we had there, but there might be some changes I would make to some other events on the list. Anyway, before people make more ridiculous article names like 50 m Freestyle at the 2008 Summer Olympics, I suggest we finalize this, and make sure all the event main pages are set up to be conducive to good data gathering. My list can be found at User:Jared/2008 events, but anyone can move this into our project if you're feeling ambitious! Give me your thoughts and/or edit the page accordingly. Jared (t) 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- When using a dash like that in the title, you should really either use a spaced en-dash, or an unspaced em-dash, so Diving at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 3 metre springboard or Diving at the 2008 Summer Olympics—Men's 3 metre springboard (my preference is for the former). There should be a redirect at the title with the normal hyphen. See WP:DASH for details Bluap (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- To be frank, we've always used the normal dash and there have not really been any problems. Obviously, if it poses a problem it can be changed, but I don't think it is that big of an issue that something needs to change, especially seeing as how this would necessitate the moving and redirecting of thousands of pages. Jared (t) 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- On a related note, does anybody remember why we have "Men's" and "Women's" in upper case? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm I'm not sure why it started like that, but I think it looks neater that way, because each event name is basically its own page name, except for that it is prefaced by the generic "Event at the Year Season Olympics - ". I feel like it makes sense to keep it capitalized, but I probably wouldn't care if it weren't. Jared (t) 16:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
2008 Olympics articles needing special attention
What do people think of making a special watchlist for the run-up to the Olympics and the games themselves of "hot areas" for vandalism and/or libel, to help make sure things stay clean? The big obvious one would be 2008 Summer Olympics, but all pages or biographical articles that are specific tagets, whether for political reasons or whatever, could go on it. Alternatively, there could be one watchlist with every article on the 2008 Olympics and every athlete there, and another one for heavy vandalism targets. Kolindigo (talk) 03:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Are you saying just make a subpage on our wikiproject of pages we should keep watch on? If so, I do think that makes sense, but how we would patrol them, I'm not sure. A good idea though. Jared (t) 15:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sport per year templates
| Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics  Qualification | ||||
| Individual | men | women | ||
| Team | men | women | ||
I've started to create the sport per year templates ({{ArcheryAt2008SummerOlympics}}), which basically only involves copying the 2004 template (I found a list I compiled a while back here) and crosschecking with my 2008 events list. I think this is a good idea in general, to get these templates up on the pages, so that editors will edit the properly-named pages (again, last call!). My question right now, though, is where should I put Qualification subpages on that template? I was thinking something like what's right here on your right, which should work, but if anyone has a better suggestion, let me know. Otherwise, I'll probably implement that when I get the chance to add the rest of the templates. Jared (t) 15:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. It's a little buried. Maybe something more like this?
| Archery at the 2008 Summer Olympics
| ||||
| Qualification | ||||
| Individual | men | women | ||
| Team | men | women | ||
- Yeah I thought about that as well, but the problem I have with that is that it looks as though the links following Qualification will show the qualification for each individual event. We could put it at the bottom, but even there I feel like it's out of place. Another suggestion would be to eliminate the link all together, or possibly even eliminate the pages all together? Are qualification pages all that important that they need their own page, or is it just a matter of space? Jared (t) 23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right, it does look like it's the qualification for each event. I think qualification articles are cool and interesting and definitely should be kept, but I'm a nerd like that. ;) Maybe it could be merged into the main article? Or would that be too long? Kolindigo (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- It seems this time, more attention has been focused on the Olympic qualification period hence such a great amount of pages concerning different Olympic sports' qualifying criteria and qualified athletes. So I like your idea of incorporating such pages in the "sport per year" templates. But does anyone know if all Olympic sport pages have a "qualification" section? I don't know how it would look like if some templates didn't have such link while others do have.
- Anyways, I think we can manage a way to stuck that link into the template without making it look out of place. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Separate Beach volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics article
Hi all. I have noticed — through a recent edit of this template — the creation of a separate article for the beach volleyball event at the 2008 Games. I think User:Bib was editing in good faith, but I'm kinda split here now that this hit me in the face: we have examples of different disciplines of a sport that are separately linked in this type of template (e.g. diving, swimming, water polo, etc.), but we also have links to sports which also have multiple disciplines (e.g. canoeing, volleyball) but these disciplines are not given such "priviledge". What should we do? Parutakupiu (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wish Bib had checked at this WikiProject before making those "good faith" edits. I really think this needs to be viewed on a per-sport basis; I don't think any "rule" for consistency makes sense. For example, I would strongly oppose combining all the aquatics events or skiing or skating events together, as they are quite disparate. But I would also oppose splitting the equestrian events or the wrestling events into their multiple disciplines. Gymnastics, canoeing/kayaking, and volleyball are the three sports that I think could go one way or the other. One thing is for sure—we ought to apply the same treatment for all past Games and not just handle 2008 uniquely. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Given the three sports you just named, I would say that both gymnastics and canoeing should no doubt be kept together. I mean, intrinsically, each one's disciplines are connected to one another (unlike aquatics). I don't know how to describe it, but I don't think it would make sense to split those two. Now, I can see where Bib and you two are coming from, suggesting that maybe volleyball should be split. But to be completely honest, I think the two disciplines are so similar to each other that splitting it into two different articles for each games would be inappropriate. Now, for aquatics, there is no doubt in my mind that the 4 disciplines should not be in the same page. To put it simply, the objectives in each of the 4 disciplines of aquatics are completely different (swim fast, score goals, dance elegantly, don't splash), while in volleyball, they're exactly the same (hit the ball over the net). That being said, I really wouldn't have a fit if they were kept separate, but I truly don't think the two disciplines are different enough to warrant 2 articles. Jared (t) 17:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a clarification, and to preempt someone saying "But the disciplines of gymnastics don't have the same objectives," I will concede that gymnastics probably could be split. I would not, however, endorse this because people rarely split the disciplines apart when referring to the sport. Personally, I would consider trampolining just an event of gymnastics, not a completely separate discipline, although the governing body would disagree with me. In other words, I feel like gymnastics is gymnastics, no matter what the discipline. So basically, here, it would be a matter of "would it make sense to split the article" and my answer would be no. Jared (t) 17:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reading your opinion, Jared, I find myself agreeing completely with it. There's no intrinsic reason to separate volleyball disciplines that are so similar, unlike aquatics disciplines whose competitive goals are very different. What then? Warn Bib about our perspective and act accordingly upon this newly created article? Parutakupiu (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more over dinner, and would suggest we merge beach volleyball back into the main article (instead of my "either way" thoughts above). With the merge, we end up with seven articles to completely cover the sport:
- Volleyball at the xxxx Summer Olympics — top-level article with medal summary (list of athletes), summary of participating nations, etc.
- Men's indoor tournament results — set of individual match results, group summaries, tournament bracket, etc.
- Men's indoor tournament team rosters — list of competitors for each of the 12 teams
- Women's indoor tournament results
- Women's indoor tournament team rosters
- Men's beach tournament results — bracket, etc.
- Women's beach tournament results
- If we treat beach volleyball as a "first level" sport, then we would end up with eight articles, with the addition of "Beach volleyball at the xxxx Summer Olympics". I assume everything else would be the same. To be honest, I see no good reason why we need to split the top-level "Volleyball at the xxxx Summer Olympics" article into two—all that summary information for both disciplines is easily contained in a single article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought about this a bit more over dinner, and would suggest we merge beach volleyball back into the main article (instead of my "either way" thoughts above). With the merge, we end up with seven articles to completely cover the sport:
- Nobody notified me of this discussion. Here are reasons I found for splitting the article. 1: Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics as of now, only has a tiny section on beach volleyball, even though the page is huge. 2: The sport Beach volleyball has its own article, Volleyball has its own article, and they are different sports. 3: The two have different qualification rounds, different players, different nations participating. 4: The official Beijing site, has two articles: [5] 5: A separate beach volley article makes it easier to find information.
- And now the Beach volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics was removed (through redirecting), without moving it's information to the 'Volleyball' page. A full page with information on beach volley at the 2008 Olympics. Beside, if you are scared that splitting the article makes beach volley too much a 'first level' sport, there is the possibility of calling it 'Volleyball (beach) at the 2008 Summer Olympic', and then not add it to the EventsAt2008SummerOlympics template. Bib (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the data shouldn't just be removed, or the article orphaned so that no-one can find it.
- How about the following solution: We just have volleyball on the template, but we keep Beach volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics as a full article in its own right, linked via the {{main}} tag from the beach volleyball section of the Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics Bluap (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Let me first apologize to Bib. I was multitasking when I followed through with the consensus here, doing other things on my desk, and I was all set to leave you a message on your talk page and completely forgot. I am sorry for forgetting to do that. Now, the problem at hand seems to be that the volleyball page is too large, and beach deserves its own. I stand by my opinion that they really are the same, just with different rules. I mean, the objectives are the same in both sports, so the background information is nearly the same. To me, it would be like splitting Tennis into Doubles Tennis and Singles Tennis, or Clay Court Tennis and Grass Court Tennis. It just wouldn't make sense. In general, I don't think another page should exist for volleyball. Jared (t) 23:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- (moving back out) Well, I think that it would be a good idea that beach volleyball got its own page, just not necessarily its own MAIN page. Something along the lines of "Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Beach volleyball". Right now, the main Volleyball page is very big (and only going to get bigger), and I do think it would be prudent to make pages for the seperate genders as well as pages for beach volleyball, as long as all these pages are "sub-pages" for the main volleyball article. Perakhantu (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that should be done, like Andrwsc suggested above and like is already the case with Volleyball at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Don't know why it wasn't so to begin with. -- Jao (talk) 07:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- (moving back out) Well, I think that it would be a good idea that beach volleyball got its own page, just not necessarily its own MAIN page. Something along the lines of "Volleyball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Beach volleyball". Right now, the main Volleyball page is very big (and only going to get bigger), and I do think it would be prudent to make pages for the seperate genders as well as pages for beach volleyball, as long as all these pages are "sub-pages" for the main volleyball article. Perakhantu (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I just now noticed this section. A couple of days ago, I opened a discussion about the categorization of beach volleyball as a separate sport here. Commenters above are encouraged to reflect their opinions there as well. Neier (talk) 02:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Good link[6] you gave at that discussion, where it says that the ioc has beach volleyball categorized under volleyball, because the same page says that sports in the water, (Diving at the 2008 SO, Swimming at the 2008 SO, Synchronized Swimming at the 2008 SO, Water polo) should be categorized under Aquatics at the 2008 SO, which it is not. If one checks the official site for the 2008 games,[7] it's called aquatics there too, in fact aquatics and volleyball are the only two sports with sub categories. If aquatics cane have a page for each of it's sub categories, volleyball can too. Bib (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for that info. It points to the inconsistencies we have here. In my opinion, the number one priority should be for Wikipedia to be consistent with itself, followed by consistency with outside sources as a close #2. On the one hand, gymnastics (artistic, rhythmic, and trampoline) articles have always been treated as sub-disciplines (matching the IOC page); and the categorization was similarly made to match it last year. Likewise, volleyball (volleyball and beach volleyball) articles have (until 2008) been treated as sub-disciplines. The current CFD aims to bring the categorization to match the articles again. On the other hand, the articles for aquatics and categories we have currently match with each other (in conflict with the IOC's pages). Changing that to match the IOC would require hundreds of page names, and since the articles and categories do not use different naming schemes, that is a lower priority than fixing the beach volleyball cats to match the article names that the project has chosen. Neier (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ireland teams at the 1908 Olympics
In 1908 the Ireland national field hockey team and an Ireland polo team competed in the field hockey and polo competitions. However User:Doma-w objects to members of these team being described as Irish or being placed in categories for Irish Olympians. He has even reverted my attempts to link the hockey players to the above team. Any thoughts Djln--86.130.133.59 (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- They did not compete for Ireland at the 1908 Games; they competed for Great Britain (which represented the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland). People born on the island of Ireland can certainly be placed in Category:Irish field hockey players (for example), but from an Olympic perspective, they must be categorized in Category:Olympic field hockey players of Great Britain and Category:Field hockey players at the 1908 Summer Olympics. I'm not sure if Category:Olympic competitors from Ireland who represented other countries applies to them or not, but you might consider that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the Great Britain team that entered these events. The articles refer to the teams they played for as Ireland. There was no single GB team in these particular competitions. So your point makes no sense. I do not object to them being placed in the first three categories but I think if they were placed in Category:Olympic competitors from Ireland who represented other countries it would be a contradiction. They did not play for other countries, they played for Ireland. Djln --Djln (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The two most authoritative sources we have for any Games are the official report and the IOC's website. The report (here) states the following for hockey (p. 197): Germany and France entered Hockey teams against the United Kingdom, which was represented by elevens from England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, and totals all UK athletes under a single team (p. 722). The IOC medal database (here) shows the four teams in hockey in 1908 as all from the same nation, namely "GBR" (also shown with the Union Jack), but also shows "Ireland" as the team name for the silver medalists. Several team sports in early Games featured multiple teams from the same nation, so this is not unusual for the time. (Another example: two French teams won medals in water polo at the 1900 Summer Olympics). The way in which we handle this situation on Field hockey at the Summer Olympics is consistent with these facts: there were four Great Britain teams that received medals, and additionally, we indicate the constituent countries for each of those four teams in parenthesis. The subcategories under Category:Olympic competitors for Ireland are intended for any person who represented Ireland at the Olympics since 1924, and should not contain any person who competed for other National Olympic Committees, including Great Britain up to 1920. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am not disputing that these Ireland teams were part of the wider GB Olympic team or who gets the credit for the medals. However these teams competed as Ireland in these particular competitions. The links you provided are great and will make excellent reading. However they do really clarify anything. Perhaps a Category:Olympic competitors from Ireland might be more accurate. Can you also explain why edits linking Ireland national field hockey team to its players from 1908 have been reverted. Djln
- Can I? No. I didn't do that. As for the category, I suppose it could be created, but would be confusing versus the "for Ireland" category, would it not? I would object if that category was created in isolation, and not part of a larger scheme that included Category:Olympic competitors from England, Category:Olympic competitors from Wales and Category:Olympic competitors from Scotland. Alternatively, perhaps a less confusing name might be Category:Irish Olympic competitors. But again, unless we have a broader scheme that has categories for all other ethnic groups, I don't think it is a good idea. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree Irish Olympic competitors would be a less confusing title. However I don’t really think there is a call for the other categories you mentioned. Unlike the Irish, there is no real history of Scottish, Welsh or English athletes competing for anybody else at the Olympics other then the GB team. However if you really felt they necessary then I would not object. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- I never knew Wikipedia had a category for Olympic competitors from Ireland who represented other countries. Are there any other categories like that for other countries? Kolindigo (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Remember that these 'Ireland' teams did not represent the Republic of Ireland. The were selected from all of Ireland and, (I guess) included athletes from the six counties that make up Northern Ireland which is still part of the United Kingdom today (as of 2008).There are some sports where Ireland is still represented by all-Ireland teams even now (Rugby, cricket, Gaelic football, hurling I think) however the current Irish Olympic organising committee represents the Republic of Ireland and any athlete from Northern Ireland selected to represent Ireland in the Olympics would be part of the Republic of Ireland team. In 1908 athletes from all the parts of Ireland were sent to the Olympics by the British Olympic Committee. Filceolaire (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In the news proposal
The idea previously mentioned here about highlighting the Olympics on Template:In the news on the Main Page has been proposed at Template talk:In the news#Proposal: Olympics feature during the Beijing Olympics. - BanyanTree 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
i think Independent Olympic Participants is too long, can we change it to Independent Participants ?
- Well, the name of that article come from the "country code" used for that team: IOP, Independent Olympic Participants. Since templates such as
{{flagIOCathlete|athlete name|IOP|1992 Summer}}automatically generate the wikilink, I'm not sure I understand what the problem is. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)- no problem, it is just my suggestion. for example, IRI means Islamic Republic of Iran, but we use
Iran (IRI) instead of Iran (IRI) ,it is really good idea. - i think
Independent Olympic Participants (IOP) is too long. Independent Olympic Participants (IOP) is better. --Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- no problem, it is just my suggestion. for example, IRI means Islamic Republic of Iran, but we use
Amount of competitors per country
I wonder if somebody has an idea what the distribution is of the amount of competitors per team. Like how many countries send 0-10 athletes, how many 10-25, 25-50, 50-100, 100-200 and more. Is there any idea? I am not asking for exact data or something. More like very, very rough ideas. Miho (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- From the numbers I have for Athens, here's the 2004 distribution:
- >500 Athletes: 1
- 500-401 Athletes: 4
- 400-301 Athletes: 5
- 300-201 Athletes: 7
- 200-101 Athletes: 11
- 100-51 Athletes: 22
- 50-26 Athletes: 25
- 25-11 Athletes: 25
- 10-6 Athletes: 29
- <6 Athletes: 72
- Median: 52.9 Athletes
- Mode: 4 Athletes
- Edged (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Medals per country/nation, medals per citizen
There is a discussions on "country", "nation" and "region" at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2000 Summer Olympics medal count. Plus there is a debate about the importance of country size in medals achieved. Your comments are welcome on this and any other issue of the article. Lightmouse (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure?
Only to be sure, according to this "consensus" [8] wikipedia really wants to show current country code for past Games? E.g. we really want to use the country code BEN for Dahomey in 1972? But Dahomey did not change its name before 1975. So we use the country code BEN three years before the country changed its name? This means that we give this country a name which was unknown in 1972?
Or Romania, do we really want to show for all past Games the wrong country code "ROU" only because it is used today? All over many years Romania used "ROM" why we must change this? Now e.g. the page Romania at the 1988 Summer Olympics only shows "ROU" a country code which was completely unknown in 1988 and the correct code "ROM" is not even mentioned. This is like rewritten history? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have implemented some code in Template:Infobox Country Olympics to show both the current code and the code used at the time, but have not got around to fixing up the Romania pages yet. I will do so shortly. This will also help for the Netherlands—it would be confusing and foolish to use "HOL" for several past Games, but it would be useful to show both "NED" and "HOL" in those infoboxes. For Dahomey/Benin, I will restore what we used to have. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I see your point about the flags (after all, the IOC medal database uses current flags for all Games back to 1896), but we seem to have consensus even beyond the Olympics pages for historically correct flags. For the country codes, we have several interesting situations:
- Codes were not even invented/used until the 1956 Winter Games, and yet, we use codes (with templates like
{{flagIOCathlete}}for all results pages and lists of medalists for all Games. I don't think we want to change this. We could use an alternate style for results pages—instead of usingflagIOCathletein a single table column, for example, we could put the athlete names in one column and the full names of nations in a second column and don't use the codes at all. However, lists like List of Olympic medalists in athletics (men) would need to be rewritten, and I don't have a good idea of how to do that. - Between those '56 Winter Games through 1968, the codes were not standardized, and there were a lot of "unusual" codes, by today's reckoning. I would not want to use "GIA" for Japan, "OLA" for the Netherlands, "EUA" for the United States, etc. on results pages. Those codes rate a mention in the infobox, perhaps (like what I started on Algeria at the 1968 Summer Olympics as a trial).
- There are also instances of historical nations that did not compete in any past Games that used codes. For some (e.g. Bohemia, Australasia), we can use the code that the IOC currently uses to refer to them (BOH, AHZ, etc.) but for others, we have a dilemma. On the List of IOC country codes, I put a dash next to those countries, to indicate that no code at all has ever been assigned to those four (North Borneo, British Guiana, Gold Coast, and Saar). We use Guyana's code for British Guiana's appearances and Ghana's code for Gold Coast, and we use SAA for Saar as that code appears in the FIFA website to refer to Saar for the 1954 World Cup, but I am still looking for any evidence whatsoever that we can use BOR for North Borneo at the 1956 Summer Olympics.
- Since 1972, there have been several instances of code changes even among the "standard" set. Some are due to geographic renaming (like Dahomey→Benin) and some are due to requested changes by the respective NOCs (I presume), like HOL→NED and ROM→ROU. I had intially started the talk page thread here about what to do with the geographic naming instances, and it seems like we should stick with using both codes.
- That leaves the instances where a code was changed without a significant change to the nation itself. I assert that it is most logical and least confusing to use a single code (most recent) for all instances for these countries (albeit with the infobox note described above) instead of using two or more codes. The NOCs in this category are:
- El Salvador SAL→ESA
- Iran IRN→IRI
- Malaysia MAL→MAS
- Netherlands HOL→NED
- Papua New Guinea NGY→NGU→PNG
- Romania ROM→ROU
- Saudi Arabia ARS→SAU→KSA
- Vietnam VNM→VIE
- Codes were not even invented/used until the 1956 Winter Games, and yet, we use codes (with templates like
- Does this sound like a reasonable plan? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I see your point about the flags (after all, the IOC medal database uses current flags for all Games back to 1896), but we seem to have consensus even beyond the Olympics pages for historically correct flags. For the country codes, we have several interesting situations:
New external link template
I have created Template:USOC profile to help standardize links to USOC athlete profiles. Kolindigo (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
08 Olympics articles - creating sub-articles for each discipline/event
For the 08 Olympics, are we creating sub-articles for each discipline/event within a sport? For example, I notice with Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics the article has been split off into respective sub-articles for the Men's and Women's competitions. Likewise, weightlifting is having sub-pages created for each weight class. In contrast, sports like field hockey or handball haven't had separate men's and women's sub-articles created yet. Is creating sub-article for each discipline/event within a sport the agreed convention? If so, should we be removing game-specific info from the top-level pages (eg. Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics) as it is now redundant because it is now in sub-pages (eg. Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men and Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women). Top-level pages would then become summary pages. Personally I like the idea of splitting each event (weight class, men's/women's comp etc...) into sub-pages and directing the reader through the use of the sport per year templates (eg. {{BasketballAt2008SummerOlympics}}) located on a top-level summary page. Would be really good to get some consensus on this and thus develop consistency to how pages for each sport, discipline, event (weight class, men's/women's etc...) should be arranged. Goldfinger820 (talk) 06:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is most certainly the plan. The 2004 pages should be the best guideline for how we want the 2008 pages to look, and most of the 31 sports are >95% "complete". (Alas, some work remains for some sports, and the 2008 Games are almost upon us!) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Gymnastics at the Olympics
I'm reviving WP:WikiProject Gymnastics, and obviously there is a fair bit of overlap between the project and this one. If assistance is required (and I imagine it will be once the games get underway) then feel free to drop a note over at WT:WikiProject Gymnastics. -- ratarsed (talk) 13:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Can someone with a good working knowledge of BLP take a look at the Dara Torres article and try to improve it? I know there is enough stuff out there right now that there should be a way to put in the fact that she is going out of her way to combat steroid allegations by volunteering for tests and so on, but I can't think of a good way to do it without hitting up against BLP problems when trying to source the fact that there are allegations in the first place, because from what I can tell, all the allegations are from people saying "there is no way she could do that, she must be on steroids", instead of actual verifiable doping problems. *sigh* Anyone want to take a stab at the article? Kolindigo (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 6638 articles are assigned to this project, of which 200, or 3.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Olympic cities list--error?
I am trying to memorize the Olympic cities, and was pleased to find the list here. Even more pleased to find the sentence that said there are only six cities that have hosted the Olympics more than once. BUT--it looks to me like there are seven.
The six listed in that sentence are Los Angeles, London, Paris, St. Moritz, Lake Placid and Athens. But the list lower on the page has Innsbruck in 1964 and 1976.
I am too new to Wikipedia to edit this myself...wanted to see if others could explain maybe why I'm wrong.
VJGen (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it should read seven. I have updated List of Olympic host cities. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Olympic Anthem
In many Youtube´s video like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y_hL5cai-I you can heared the anthem. In this video you can hear the anthem in Greek during the celebrations of the coming of the year 2000 (2000 Today)in Athens. --Bicko2008 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)