Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics

• Archive 1 — March 31, 2006 – April 5, 2006
• Archive 2 — April 22, 2006 – October 24, 2006
• Archive 3 — November 20, 2006 – March 23, 2007
• Archive 4 — March 28, 2007 – June 5, 2007
• Archive 5 — June 5, 2007—February 5, 2008
• Archive 6 — February 5, 2008 – |

To start a new discussion section, please click here

[edit] 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)

It really is a crappy official reports — no actual results, and only top 8 athletes listed per event! Is there another companion volume with complete results that we're still missing? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (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)

Wonderful. Jared (t)  19:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magdalena Mikloş

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Norway at the 1994 Winter Olympics

It's says that Norway took 10 golds but only seven are show.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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)

At the IOC site, they use metre (386 ghits vs 11 for meter); but, they also have ?official? names for the events, such as 400m hurdles; 3000m steeplechase; etc. Here is the programme of events for Beijing, for example: [2] Neier (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure how "official" those names are, and they certainly violate the WP:MOS. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Assessment template

Template:OlympicsWikiProject seems to have a problem. See Template_talk:OlympicsWikiProject#Broken? for info. Paulbrock (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain it's fixed. Jared (t)  21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ?

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)

Time to say goodbye Doma-w (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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. Basketball110^Talk 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

Thanks - Marrio (talk) 13:45, 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)

←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 Olympic Games. 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)

It would seem the correct course of action would be to nominate the article for deletion, if you truly believe it is all original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Summer Olympics

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)

Thank you very much. I'll keep an eye on this to see how it develops. Jared (t)  01:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone has just reverted the change... Bluap (talk) 05:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

So you'd oppose any medal count list being featured if it had a table of arts competition medals on it? Marrio (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

Y Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 2016 Summer Olympics bids

The article 2016 Summer Olympics bids need urgently improvements. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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:

1. Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament — includes the box scores of each game, tournament brackets and group stage summary tables, etc.
2. Basketball at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's tournament
3. 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.
4. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

I couldn't agree more, and I think the best way to achieve this is to complete the 2004 pages in the next 8 weeks and simply say "do it like that". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you were to give a status report, how much work do we have to do that? I'd be willing to step up my game for the sake of the project.... Jared (t)  00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)