Talk:Brazil at the 2004 Summer Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Sports Olympics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Olympic Games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the General Project Discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.

If you have content to enrich the article, you're most welcome to go ahead and do so (as Jonel is doing), but if you dropped by and just thought that the medal board "would look prettier some other way", or something like that, please use the talk page before you do it. And I used the example of the medal board because actual information that was on it (Brazil finished 18th on medal board and 21st in general count) was bluntly erased (and it wasn't anywhere else on the article) in order to accommodate a pic of the Olympic Rings, which is scarcely necessary, and the redundant "information" that this was Brazil — when the very article is called "BRAZIL at the 2004 Summer Olympic Games". You see, I have spent an absurd amount of time on this article, and for each coma I change in it, I check for any consequences it may have on layout and the quality of information flow. Thanks and sorry if I have offended anyone. Redux 02:10, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil 5th gold medal

Hi, really nice of you to dedicate yourself so much to this article. But would recommend you to read the last news about the Brazilian gold medals. It's been almost a week since the IOC recognized the Brazilians' fifth gold medal (instead of silver) on the equestrian dispute. What the en.wiki shows is the Irish O'Connor with a gold medal, but his horse was caught on drug test. I suggest you to read this article. I don't intend to "make it look better". We brazilians don't need to. Thank you.

I'm aware of the IOC decision. But the question here is that the decision is not yet final because the Irish Olympic Committee still has legal resources that have not yet been explored. As such, the decision awarding Pessoa the gold medal is still revertable (the very article you indicated in your comment acknowledges that possibility – and in fact describes it as a strong one, should O'Connor decide to go through with it). In fact, Pessoa will not get the olympic medal until the decision has become unappealable. And the Olympic Anals will not be amended until such time. It is a legal matter. If you are Brazilian, I direct you to the expression "coisa julgada", meaning that this first decision was only a first victory in the path to revert the official results of the Olympics, unless the Irish choose not to pursue the remaining legal means at their disposal. This is an encyclopedia, and as such, we cannot get ahead of the facts. It may well be that the Irish decide not to pursue this case any further, then the IOC will promote Pessoa to gold medalist of the event in question (definitevely) and award him the gold medal (meaning that he will receive the very medal). ONLY THEN can we actually alter the article. I have not seen any information indicating that this final decision has been made (only that O'Connor was considering forgoing his appeal to the IOC's preliminary decision). When we get such a report, the article can be altered (it will be verifiable). The details of the ongoing dispute are off topic for this article, which only reflects the official results of the 2004 Olympic Games. If we had an article on Pessoa (which I don't think we do at this time), that would be the appropriate venue for this piece of information. Regards, Redux 21:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why does Brazil suck at Olympic football?

[edit] This page is a mess!

I can appreciate the hard work that went into collecting the contents of this page, but it is unlike any other "Nation at the Olympics" page (and I've edited over a thousand of them). I don't think it helps to have information repeated two or three times - for example, the results by date section is redundant. Also, the formatting choices for results sections are very strange, with odd indentation, lots of white space, etc. It is extremely difficult to navigate through this data. Some editing help is requested! Andrwsc 21:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

When I started this article, I had an idea of how it should turn out in the end. But other users started adding sections that, in the end, were repeating most of the information I had already put in, just with a different presentation. I'm all for trimming it, by keeping whichever section presents the most details — certainly not remove data simply because other articles may not be as detailed, but organizing, reformatting are always welcome. But we better get the final outlook figured out here before actually digging in, or it will be difficult to come up with a more effective organization. Redux 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The "standard" format adopted by the editors in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics is to have a section for medal winners at the top, followed by the "Results by event" section which has sub-sections for each sport. I have never seen a page in this series of Olympic articles that duplicates the data by having the standard "Results by event" section and a parallel "Results by date" section. I think that is the first place in which this article should be re-formatted. It make no sense to present the same information both ways. The "by date" section serves no useful purpose anymore. Each athlete's results ought to be detailed just once. Andrwsc 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not necessary to inform the results twice. What I said is that we need to preserve whichever one is richer in details. It is also possible to simply reorganize the data that is currently listed by date to have it listed by event. The main point is not to sacrifice data that has been added just because other articles are poorer in that regard. As far as presentation (by date, by event or whatever), it is a question of reformatting the article. Redux 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess we agree. I never proposed to "sacrifice" any information, so I'm not sure why you're implying that. Andrwsc 01:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I never thought you were. But this thread is not private, so when laying down a proposal, we need to cover all bases. Besides, as I mentioned, some data was only duplicated because users started inserting them without looking to see that they were already in the article. Meaning, we need to be as clear and comprehensive as we can with things like this, or we run certain unnecessary risks that only increase our workload unnecessarily, such as having people drop by, read this and just decide to eliminate duplicates at random, deleting information that should not be deleted. Redux 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)