Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic conventions/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The debates on this page are archived, meaning that they have been decided and now they are being saved for records. Please do not edit what is inside the archive boxes. If you feel you need to make a comment outside of the box (either above or below it) you may, but do not vote on the issues, as your votes will not be viewed.

Contents

[edit] Archive of already decided resolveds.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Metric numbers like "fifteen hundred meters" should be written "1500m".


The outcome of this debate is:
Support.
based on the consensus of 17/2/1.

  • Support. I agree because working with commas and dots would make everything harder.
    --Jared [T]/[C]\[P:O]/[@]\[+] 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks cleaner, more concise, and more in line with Wikipedia standards. I agree with Jared that it is better not to have to deal with commas, periods, and all of the extra letters when typing it repeatedly. --Caponer 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks more professional. --Thepangelinanpost 20:05, 20 February 2006 (EST)
  • Support. - Do not use commas and dot.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Not having to use commas would definitely make things easier. I support using commas over dots if it comes down to thtat. Sue Anne 02:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. - I'd prefer "1500 m" in tables and "1500 metres" in text/article titles, as per WP:MOSNUM.
    • Comment. - But yeah, no comma or dot. -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I Agree. --Dgmartin98 20:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I feel that writing them out is a waste of space and on TV they normally just show 1500m and most people understand what they are talking about. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Looks better and people don't need to read long words. Hohohob 06:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - certainly better than the text fo lists and tables and as this is a measurement based thing "sports" the numbers should be used. If thousands sepearaters are used it should be with commas as this is more universally used. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 11:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Neutralvote I don't care between nothing and commas, but I oppose dots if it comes down to it. It's fifteen hundred meters, not one and a half meters to four significant digits.--Josilot 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I strongly agree that no commas or dots are needed. I also strongly agree that we should only use the SI symbol of "m" and do not spell out the full name, for two reasons: it looks cleaner and is almost universally understood, and we would avoid any spelling issues (see Metre). As for the space between the number and the symbol, I was always taught that no space is used. I am trying to find a reference for that, but no luck so far. Andrwsc 19:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - But if we're to rename all the text in past Olympics from, for example, 1500 metres to 1500m, then we've got a lot of work to do :o\ tiZom(2¢) 21:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. - I was already thinking that AutoWikiBrowser will probably help fix a bunch of these things. Right now, I'm so focused on 2006 results, that I'm not ready to start running a bunch of AWB search and replaces. Sue Anne 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I agree that retrofitting past articles is a lot of work, but at least we can follow this convention from here on. Crunch 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. — I wrote "oppose" because there should be a space between the number and the units. John 18:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Emc² (Contact me ) 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. John Anderson 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC) I agree with John; it should be 1500 m, not 1500m.
  • Support. Clearer is better, so no punctuation, dashes or spaces. 70.28.107.177 09:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nick C 17:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 1500m--no space--is the way it is used in the media in general; thus, this is how we should do it here. More standard. Kurt Weber 13:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. . Andy Saunders 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Countries should be ranked according to the type of medal they have, not the quantity.


The outcome of this debate is:
Support.
based on the consensus of 21/5/2.

  • Comment. I propose two solutions, the first as someone else suggested to have the option to toggle between both lists (based on medal count or based on gold medals). The other is may be we can have a weighting system wherein say we can give 3 points for every gold , 2 for silver and 1 for bronze and then rank countries according to the total. The reasoning behind this being the fact the a country winning 5 silver medals definitely deserves to be ranked ahead of a country winning say 1 gold medal.
  • Support. This should be so because if you had 13 golds, wouldn't that be better than 14 bronzes. You had to work harder to get a higher medal, so you should be ranked higher.
    --Jared [T]/[C]\[P:O]/[@]\[+] 22:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is the convention used by the IOC to display medal counts on their webpage. See [1] for the IOC's webpage with the medal count for the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City.--Josilot 22:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I concur with Jared and Josilot's arguments for ranking participating nations by quality of metals and not quantity. --Caponer 00:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. as per Josilot.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with the points made above, it makes more sense to rank them by medal count. Canada may have a high medal count but we only have a few gold medals compared to others, so it definately should be ranked by type. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - second place ain't bad, but it doesn't make you an Olympic champion. -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I won't be the bitter Canadian. This is the only way that makes sense. --Anderal 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - It makes no sense to do it this way. The Olympics don't just give out gold medals, they give out silver and bronze for a reason, not just to be used as secondary factors after gold when determining ranking. Logically, Estonia shouldn't be ahead of Norway in the medal standings, because they have fewer medals. People coming to these pages want to see which country has the most medals, not which one has the most gold medals. So it makes sense to make that easy for them on first glance. 70.49.125.45 05:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. "Anonymous unregistered user", you realize that when these same users visit the officially sponsored Olympic Games websites that they find the same exact rankings in the same exact order: sorted by quality then quantity of medals. I see your logic in how it doesn't seem right that Estonia be ahead of Norway in the rankings, but it clearly shows that Norway has more medals in the "total column" so it's not like Norway's large numbers of silver and bronze medals are hidden from the users' view. Because gold is the highest possible Olympic honor, the IOC feels it is only fitting to rank the countries' medal totals by this benchmark. --Caponer 05:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. FYI, the IOC doesn't "feel it fitting to rank the countries' medal totals by this benchmark." They don't even find it fitting to rank the countries at all. From [2]: "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only." Maelwys 12:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I think that since the IOC does it with gold medals then silver and then bronze it the way it should be done. The olympics is about being the best in the world. Not about being able to come close alot. Another thing to note is that I haven't seen many people arguing that Norway should be knocked out of number 1 slot in 2002 even though both Germany and The United States of America have more gold than they do. By a much larger margin I might add. (Happyax 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Support. It is better to rank according to higher medals. Hohohob 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - I am strongly against both systems of ranking. They are both unfair. It is, of course, better to have 2 golds then 3 bronzes. It is also undisputed that having 11 medals (of which only 1 gold) is better than having 2 golds. In my opinion, new ranking system should be introduced in which one should valuate gold medal with, let's say, 3 points, silver medal with 2 points and bronze medal with 1 point. That would not be completely fair but would be much better solution. Brunislav 10:12, 21 February 2006
    • Comment. Brunislav, that seems like a great idea, but it would be extremely hard to impliment; this would require too much math, and every time it changes everything would have to be recalculated. Additionally, I don't think we should make up a new system because then people will be so confused when they see that the Wiki table is different from the IOC table; which leads me to say that the IOC uses the "gold first" method which works! Back to the IOC, they should be the final call for all of this. --Jared [T]/[+] 13:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. A point system would require editors to determine how many points each medal is valued. Is gold worth 3 times more than a bronze? 10 times? 100 times? Since each editor has a subjective opinion on the value of a gold medal vs. a podium finish, I think it's difficult to find a fair system that would appease WP:NPOV. --Madchester 16:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't think Wikipedia should be responsible for implementing a brand new ranking system for an event that has been contested in the modern world for over a hundred years.--Josilot 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I tried out your system of using points and I feel that it just doesn't matter. I did the top 10 countries and only two countries switched places (Canada/Russia and Italy/Switzerland). Look at the results, it just doesn't show anything. I can post the full results if people want them. --Omnieiunium 19:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I've always been satisfied with ranking 5*gold + 3*silver + 2*bronze. I think it's nice because 2 medals of one type are worth slightly more than a medal of higher type. 2 Bronzes are worth 33% more than one silver, while 2 silvers are only worth 20% more than 1 gold. The results when ranking like this always "look right", IMHO. --Yoghurt 15:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I'll say it again...Don't you believe that even if that system did work well (which it probably wouldn't) the pages/tables would be so hard to take care of; you would have to first make thousands of calculations to get the right numbers for every olympics, then for the currently olympics' you would have to constantly have to calculate, recalculate, and resort. Remember, all of this work is not going to be done by itself. We're the ones to be doing this work. --Jared [T]/[+] 18:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - The focus in such sporting events is excellence not "near" excellence. Sort by Golds, then by Silvers, and then by Bronzes. Which is what most official and media publication appears to do. If they do other they appear to have specific vested resasons for the difference. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 11:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In North America, we use the total number of medals first, followed by ranking in terms of gold and then silver. If we're doing a total all-time medal count (and not just a gold-medal count), then it makes sense to list the countries in order of total medals. That way someone can easily find out which country has won the most medals at first glance, not just which country has won the most golds. --70.49.125.45 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (as posted on this page. --Jared [T]/[+] 13:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This IP Address has already voted once in this poll.--Josilot 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Nevermind, vote was changed to comment.--Josilot 16:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The sorting of countries needs to be done in order to make the table readable. However, stepping outside of the IOC's decision on this issue would only be done in order to answer the question: "Which country won the Olympics?". Since no country ever actually wins the Olympics, any method of determining this is doomed to fail. Medal counts are just medal counts. They're fun to follow and nice trivia to know, but the countries are ultimately only sorted, not ranked.--Don Sowell 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer to be consistent with the IOC method (and it is important for the Wikipedia page to make reference to that method as a 'disclaimer' at the top), but I also think it would save us from endless discussion about this issue every 2 years by also including the "By Total Medals" table underneath it. Andrwsc 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. The purpose of coming up with a convention to use is to be able to avoid the debate in future years by having a page to point to where the community decided what to use.--Josilot 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I don't believe the goal of ending the future debate is achieveable. I'm sure that the people who come into the project 2 years, 10 years, and 20 years from now are not going to accept that their input is not valid simply because we all choose a standard today. Rather, I would say that we are choosing a standard so that today's WP has a consistant format that is useful and easy to read. Solving the debate for all time is too big of a task and too much to ask.--Don Sowell 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Most media, not just in the U.S., but around the world, equate "medal count" with "total overall medals and use that convention. What the IOC does on their page is not that relevant. We should focus on what's intuitive to our end reader, not on falling in lockstep with the IOC. Crunch 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - I disagree. They should be ranked by total medals, not by type of medals. --Dgmartin98 20:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - If the type-of-medal way is the official IOC way of doing it, that should be the Wikipedia way. thepangelinanpost 19:41, 21 February 2006 (EST)
    • Comment. That's just the problem, though...it's not the official way because the IOC is not supposed to "rank" per se...but they can make a table, and the way they make theirs on their sites is by ranking by medal type. so I still support this resolved. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Where is this so called long standing tradition of listing it by gold first? Most are probably just followers of an existing system out of sheer laziness or barring any real thought into the matter. This is not a life and death matter, but I strongly oppose the gold system. The Norway example has been given. By supporting the IOC example is illogical. If they are supposed not rank per se, then why necessarily follow their system? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rickywiki (talk • contribs) .
  • Question. sorry for my lack of web page knowledge, but since the internet is "interactive" is it not possible for the list to toggle between different columns. In other words, click the gold column and get the order of highest golds, click the total column and get the highest order in totals, and so on for silver and bronze. This way, everyone is happy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rickywiki (talk • contribs) .
  • Template:Neutralvote Why not simply recognize that fact that there are two common methods of ranking medal winning countries, include both, and let the reader decide which is more important? Caerwine Caerwhine 01:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Mbisanz 06:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. By the way, no matter which way you choose, when it comes to total medals, gold standard or total standard, US will be on top , so there is no way to avoid that problem for the people who seem to have a problem with that issue.Rickywiki 08:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no perfectly fair ranking method/sort order; this is the best compromise. Ranking according to medal total is worse, because it makes the difference between 3rd and 4th place greater than the difference between a gold and a silver. Magnus Holmgren 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. In any case, it's not a really big deal. Everyone can weigh the medals according to taste. Magnus Holmgren 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. per Josilot. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. John Anderson 01:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jugalator 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Emc² (Contact me ) 23:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. — CJewell (talk to me) 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wnet on line to check other ecyclopedias, but none of them seemed to have a totals list, except InfoPlease Almanax which had it listed in order of totals not gold. The World ALmanac also does not list overall totals, but when it lists winners for the latest Games, it does it bt Total not GOld. This however was NOT a very extensive search. Seemed to have problems finding other examples.

Support. The IOC uses the Gold first system, as does the BBC. A disclaimer would be good, and a link to a site which offers total medal ranking systems, but we should defer to the IOC. After all, they run the Games!

  • Template:Neutralvote Nick C 14:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] The host nation should be highlighted in a different color.


The outcome of this debate is:
Support.
based on the consensus of 18/3/1.

  • Support. I see a lot of differences on past Olympic pages where the host nation is either bolded in some or highlighted in others. I'd like to stick to one convention for all of these.--Josilot 23:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I prefer highlighting the host nation's name and row in a different color so that bolding can be reserved for indicating which nation has the highest amount of each medal. --Caponer 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, highlighting looks much better. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -Yes, it is notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Considering that host nations often send more athletes to the Games than they regularly do, it often inflates their medal count from their historical records. --Madchester 02:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I don't see why this would be a problem, I personally find it useful. I agree that the background should be changed, I feel it looks better. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Highlight looks much better than bold. As for inflation of medal count, I'm not convinced... Italy got two hockey spots in Torino, but that didn't do much to improve their medal count. Early Games, maybe (*cough* 1904 *cough*). Guess the point's really moot as it pertains to this question though, as highlighting the host is just plain interesting ;). -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Highlighted is better. Bold means you can't really see it. Hohohob 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Neutralvote - however it needs to be one or the other and consistent. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 11:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There is a long standing Olympic tradition of highlighting the host nation in ways like this.--Don Sowell 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - As long as it's non-intrusive to the rest of the chart...noticeable, yet easily overlooked. tiZom(2¢) 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It's a tad idiotic, and although it's nice to recognize the host, I don't think it's relevant in the context of international competition - where exactly the competition is taking place. It kinda makes readers (as I did the first several times) do a double-take? "Italy? What's so special about Italy? .... Oh, that's where they are..." --IvanP/(болтай) 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Since being the host country is considered an advantage, this country should be highlighted in the chart. -- thepangelinanpost 19:45, 21 February 2006 (EST)
  • Oppose. We all know that the Olympics are in Torino, Italy. The purple highlighting is very distracting everytime I see the chart. I'm OK with bolding Italy, but the purple (or, for that matter, almost any color) gives Italy too much of an emphasis. Reuvenk 04:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It is common (albeit not universal) convention to highlight the host country in medal tables, but I would suggest that the highlight color be toned down a bit for the Wikipedia tables (the purple is a bit much). It might also help to insert the text "(host)" after the country name to make it obvious to people who don't understand the convention. 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But do it in a colour just slightly different from the rest (as has already been suggested) John Anderson 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jugalator 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Emc² (Contact me ) 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Andrwsc 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. — CJewell (talk to me) 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. But do it in a colour just slightly different from the rest (as has already been suggested) John Anderson 01:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. John Anderson, you voted support on this page, but oppose on the project page, so I have changed your vote to neutral for now. Can you please fix this for the vote you actually intended to make?--Josilot 02:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. There's a slight difference in the questions, as I interpreted them. There it was about highlighting it in dark blueish purple as it already is, here the question is just wether it should be highlighted or not. So I change my vote back to support here. Please don't change my vote again without asking me first. John Anderson 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Since my supportvote could be interpreted as that I support the present dark blue-purple, I change it to an opposevote. I like the idea of hoghlighting the host, but I don't feel that it is necessary and if it is done I think it should be done in just a slightly different shade of the same colour as the rest. John Anderson 21:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Try to be realistic, we can't be knit-picky here. If you support highlighting, you should support the color that is presently there. If you oppose it, you oppose highlighting; no different colors. Make your votes in regards to the resolved, not in regards to make up your own. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • That's an absolutely ridiculous statement given the text of the section heading. Supporting highlighting a row in a different color from the rest of the table does not require supporting a particular color. If this resolved passes, I expect a discussion on which color to use. -- Jonel | Speak 20:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, I totally agree with that, but it is totally rediculous to say "Let's change the color of all 40+ medals tables from #56DF34 to #56DF35." I mean come on. It should either stay that blue, or a totally different color. --Jared [T]/[+] 21:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nick C 17:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Medals of nations that have since split up (USSR) or united (West/East Germany) should be redistributed.


The outcome of this debate is:
Oppose.
based on the consensus of 0/21/0.

  • Oppose. I am strongly opposed to this because these individual countries won these medals by individually, not as the nation they are now. Yes, their rank will continue to receed because they are no longer participating, but there is no way it is right to do this. --Jared [T]/[+] 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. What argument is there to support this?--Josilot 00:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. View the talk pages of various olympic medals pages and you will see that many people believe that by redistributing the medals of, say, the USSR, the ranks of countries that no longer exist will go down because they are no longer contributing to their totals. See the pages for further clarification. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As I have discussed in depth in Talk:Total Olympics medal count, I feel that countries that have participated in the Olympic Games such as the USSR should be included in medal counts as USSR. On all-time counts, it should be counted separately from Russia and its various other descendant republics. The USSR and Russia are completely different geographical and political entities and it would not be appropriate to lump the two together when doing an all-time count of medals. On that same note, West Germany and East Germany should not have their medal totals added together from the games where they participated as separate entities. For the years that the two countries competed in a single team "United Team of Germany" (1956, 1960, and 1964), it is appropriate to add that total to Germany's all-time medal total. As I stated before, for a more in-depth discussion of this issue, please refer to Talk:Total Olympics medal count. --Caponer 00:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Also, The 1992 United Team cannot technically be added with the USSR or Russia because Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania competed independently from it in the 1992 Summer Olympics and the United Team only consisted of Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan at the 1992 Winter Olympics. Therefore, the United Team is technically its own entity from the USSR and Russia and is counted separately in the Total Olympics medal count. To become even more technical, the United Teams in the Winter and Summer Olympic Games are both different entities, which may call for making them separate on the Total Olympics medal count. --Caponer 00:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. This is getting so confusing! For the sake of Wikipedia, why can't these countries just stay together?! --Jared [T]/[+] 00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. Does this include the splitting of Great Britain and Ireland in the 1920's? --Mais oui! 00:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Could you elaborate more? I think it would include that though. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Great Britain and Ireland are counted separately from Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the all-time medal totals as is shown on the Total Olympics medal count. It is also termed as Great Britain and Ireland in the games where it participated as Great Britain and Ireland. So yes, to answer your question, Great Britain already adheres to this policy. --Caponer 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Thanks for the very swift answer. In that case: Oppose. It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to split many of the medals, especially the team ones.--Mais oui! 01:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Historically that is how the countries won medals, I don't see why it would be worth the effort to break up into the modern countries. I don't see an value in it. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Keep historical teams separate. Including the Unified Team of Germany, Bohemia, GB&I, 1992 Unified Team, etc. -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - We have to keep historical teams seperate. The USSR is not the same as Russia in any entity, including sport --Anderal 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is better because it keeps the essence of history. Hohohob 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Flies in the face of a historical reference. Also this could become a nightmare to maintain correctly. An athlete that lives in one location, with certain nationality can move. Do we then reassign their medals, no of course we don't. Same thing should be true of nation unification, nation division, and nation re"branding" (i.e. flag changes). We should report the history as it was then. I would say that we could make annotations to the changes in the text of footnotes. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. - New though particularly true of team sports, two countries get more shots at the target than one, so slewing the results. Keep to the historical position, and then do NOT compare country medals across years. Means nothing! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. - What's wrong with including the number of participations per country for the all time tables?
    • Comment. It's not necessarily comparing them, though. I think the sole perpose of these tables is to relay the medal count of the Olympic games. Yes, along the way it may show some discrepancy because some countries have more people than others, but so what. I saw a suggestion somewhere that we could put a "medal per participant" column...a single column to make the people who are opposed to the tables happy. It would work like this: if the U.S. had 25 medals and contributed 204 participants to the games, their "rank" would be 0.123. This isn't a bad idea. Comments? --Jared [T]/[+] 14:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. First of all: the original IOC charta forbade medal counts. Those who insist on counting medals cannot claim that one way of doing so has more formal justification than any other - none of them has any! So in many ways this is a mute discussion. You may say: but this source is doing it this way, and this source is doing it another way, but in the end it all comes down to personal opinion, which should be reflected by Wikipedia. I guess almost all of the opposing votes below are from the US, whose all time medal standings tremendously profit from the US having been a single entity since the beginning of the Olympics. It is well-known that the USSR beat the US almost every time both nations participated (Total medal counts - Summer: USSR/GUS 7, USA 2; Winter: USSR 9, USA 0), but since the USSR started participating in 1952 and does not exist any more, the all time medal counts are heavily biased towards the US, making the US look much better than it deserves, just because it participated so frequently, and some US patriots just want to keep it this way. I'd say: at the very least the all time tables should include the number of participations per country, to give a more meaningful picture.
Concerning redistributions of medals of split / reunited nations: most major non-US media view Russia as the heir of the USSR / GUS medals, and Germany as the heir of East / West / Nazi Germany. Hence their total medal counts combine the contributions of the relevant former political entities / fragments. As an example I offer the all time medal count of the leading European weekly magazine Der Spiegel: http://www.spiegel.de/sport/wintersport/0,1518,398073,00.html And this is just one of many examples where it's being done this way. To summarize: since there is no official way of counting medals, any way is as good as any other. Therefore Wikipedia probably should respect or at least include the views of the hundreds of millions who do it this way. (Unsigned comment belongs to User:Medalstats)
  • Comment. I missed the main debate on this, so if someone wants to move this comment off of this page and onto the page where the debate occurred, go ahead. But, the way I see it, Wikipedia should strive to be as informative as possible, and having a list that reflects the dynamic status of many countries throughout Olympic history seems to provide a lot more information than having a rigid list that doesn't care about how geographies have changed, and countried have separated or merged together. If a person using this information wanted to sum up, for example, all medals awarded to Germany, East Germany, and West Germany for their own use, then there is no reason that they couldn't take 2 minutes to do that. But if a person wanted to know how many medals were won by East Germany and West Germany during the time of their separation, it would not be so easy to do this if the countries had been combined. Personal opinions about your country being ranked lower on the list because of its dynamic nature should be the last thing to consider when making the most informative list possible.--Josilot 16:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Medalstats' post was originally posted in this category but the specific discussion it relates to was started in Talk:Total Olympics medal count. His viewpoint is understandable. However, I agree with Josilot that it is not appropriate to modify national team counts to satisfy personal wishes. We cannot rewrite history to pump up the numbers for the descendant republics of the Soviet bloc. I can definitely see how it may seem unfair as East Germany, West Germany, Czechoslovakia, the United Team, and the USSR will slowly drop in the all-time medals count because they no longer exist as participating teams, but they are political and athletic team entities that are defunct. To lump them with current participant teams because you want to beef up the current participating teams' (Russia and Germany) numbers and not let the former teams' (West and East Germanies and the USSR) medal counts "slip in the rankings" so to speak is not acceptable. The medals of the USSR cannot be divided, as they were medals won by the participating USSR team and the sames goes for West and East Germanies. I have no qualms including the United Team of Germany that participated in the Olympic Games of the 1950s and 1960s with the totals for Germany because West and East Germany competed as a united team that represented the current boundaries of Germany. --Caponer 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think, in the interest of providing as much information as possible, that the United Team of Germany should be listed as a separate entity from the other Germany-related entities. Again, any user who wanted a sum of all German-related olympic medals could add this to the count themselves with no problem. But any user who wanted to know how many medals the United Team of Germany won when East and West Germany combined would be out of luck. Although, if this is a concession that people are unwilling to make, I am flexible on this point.--Josilot 17:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. See my comment above.--Josilot 16:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Why should Wikipedia rank countries, which are not comparable??? It makes sense to say how many medals the US had won, or East Germany or Germany or Russia- but it makes no sense to say US ranks number one ... I would list the countries with their medals alphabetical!!! without a rank (by the way - that also the soul of the Olympic - it don't won't to say - this or this ist the best. Or why do you want to say the US is the first (the best) - in the winter games the US was always among the best but never "the" best. -Thomas (East) Germany
  • Oppose. The only reason I can see to do this is if the total medals won table is viewed as some uber-Olympics competition. No such recognized competition exists. There are no specific rules governing such a competition and no governing body that recognizes it or has authority over it. Let the table simply state what is true. Russia, for example, is not the USSR and thus should be listed separately on the table.--Don Sowell 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Don't alter history. Reports the results according to the teams as they were structured at the time. Crunch 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - The medal might not have been won if the countries were seperated.--thepangelinanpost 19:48, 21 February 2006 (EST)
  • Comment. This is also relevant in this dicussion (I'm too tired to go through and read to check if we have already mentioned it): the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) and South Korea will be participating in the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing as a unified team, which means that it, too, shall be listed completely separate from the medal counts for both North and South Koreas. --Caponer 03:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mbisanz 06:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was initially for combining the tally, but these 2 facts arise: First, there are instances where in TEAM competition, both West and East Germany won medals, enabling an unfair advantage and second, each country is allowed to qualify only a certain amount of contestants. By allowing both West and East to compete simultaneously gave them an unfair advantage on the number of contestants participating. With Russia we do not have this problem as each entity competed separately.Rickywiki 08:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. @Rickywiki - it's realy interestint that you only pick up the one fact of my argumentation below ("Countries should be ranked in alphabetical order, not regarding rank at all") which you like and the other facts which shows clearly the nonesense of the ranking not. By the way - in this case there would be also an other option. Add Germany and West Germany and only make East Germany seperate - because the state-system of today Germany is the same of West Germany - it even has the same name (Bundesrepublik Deutschland - BRD) - but I don't want to say that this would be the best way to do. - Thomas
  • Comment. Actually THomas I came upon that idea independently, without seeing your post. Also, I actually agree with your West Germany-Germany scenario. I often considered them one in the same also. But as for me still being against alphabetical, its not hard to see your pent up bias in your comments. I clearly have a more open, non ideoligical mind about it. The fact is, the success of a nation depends on MANY things: athletics, money, geography, population and even politics. The fact that the US has been able, through the Olympic years, to stay a stable complete country (as have MOST countries in the world have) does have a mitigating factor to the total. Why deny it. I'm sorry, but in a totals count. SOMEONE has to be number 1. I'm sorry you find it so aggregious that it is the US. I find this less a US patriotic issue than ou being a US basher. Sorry, taht jsut does not play in my book of logic, As for the years of Soviet dominance, you clearly can see that if you visit each seperate Olympics total.

One last note on the alphabet, you who propose this are being English-centric. IF we want to play all fair, do you realize differenet languages have different alphabets and different alphabetical order. In English, some countries would be in a certain order, in Spanish, these countries would be in a whole other oredre. Which is fair?Rickywiki 10:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well - I think you got me wrong - I'am definitaly no US basher - in fact I have often defended the US against Antiamericanism. But yes - it has to do with logic for me. A rank- system have to compare camparable stuff. It may be good for the US that it was able to stay a stable politic - that an important information - but it has nothing to do with success in sport. That there is no oficial list by the IOC has good reason. I stay with my arguments to compare 7 participations of East Germany in a list with 43 participations of the US without the information of the number of participations is realy stupid - why should someone do this. Then you can also compare the economy-power of US-January with the France-hole year economy. By the way, then you have also to divide Germany after 1990 and Nazi-Germany - because both have not relay much in commone - at least not politics - I and at least 95% of the Germans disassociate strongly from Nazi Germany. West Germany and Germany today do not differ in fact. And whats your problem to add under the ranking list an critic - to say for example that the USSR had nearly always beaten the US (15:2), which you can not see in the ranking- that also only an information. But well, because it seems that the most people here want such a list I have to accept it. But I still think it's nonsense. "I clearly have a more open, non ideoligical mind about it." ;-) Thomas
  • Oppose. There is no practical way of doing this. How do we redistribute the medal won by a team of ice hockey players from different states of the Soviet Union? It could perhaps be interesting to do it in a "what if" way, but even so, what goes where? John Anderson 01:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Jugalator 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Emc² (Contact me ) 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Andrwsc 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --John Anderson 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. --Sue Anne 01:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. — CJewell (talk to me) 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Medals for these countries should be included separately under USSR, East Germany, West Germany, etc. Nick C 17:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] The 1906 Intercalated Games should be excluded from all-time medal counts.


The outcome of this debate is:
Support.
based on the consensus of 15/2/0.

  • Support. I realized that after I had finished making corrections to the all-time totals of medals for the Total Olympics medal count using the Summer Olympics medal count, that they both include medal figures from the 1906 Intercalated Games, which is not recognized as an official games by the International Olympic Committee. I am in favor of excluding these games in agreement with the IOC's decision and modifying the lists accordingly. --Caponer 00:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I am also in agreement. The IOC should be the final entity of debate when it comes to determining what medals should and shouldn't be placed in the lists. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Sue Anne 02:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yup, follow the IOC on this one. -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The IOC doesn't even recognize medal tallies by country, so does it make sense to defer to them in terms of which games count and which don't?
    • Comment. You are correct that the IOC does not recognize medal tallies by country. They probably have this policy in order to avoid dealing with the disputes we have faced compiling such a count. However, it only makes sense to include ONLY the official Olympic Games that ARE recognized by the IOC in the all-time medal tallies. I am not opposed, though, to hearing logical arguments for as to why we should keep the 1906 Intercalated Games in the count. --Caponer 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. If it is not official, than exclude. Simple. Hohohob 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yep. I'd hate to think of the can of worms that would be opened if we started including non-IOC recognized events.--Don Sowell 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Olympic medal counts should only include IOC-sanctioned events. Wikipedia shouldn't be inventing information, it should be archiving it for encyclopedic purposes.--Josilot 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The 1906 games were originally recognized as an Olympics only to have that status later revoked, coversely, they didn't know that they were holding the first Winter Olympics in 1924. That status was added later. The 1906 games were an Olympic Games, and should be included in the overal Olympic medal total, tho I can support not counting them in the totals of Summer Games medals and considering them to be in a category of their own. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rickywiki 03:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose.
  • Support. But also create an alternate list showing the standings if it would count. John Anderson 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Jugalator 23:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Andrwsc 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --John Anderson 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. — CJewell (talk to me) 01:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Nick C 17:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Gender separated events should be refered to by using "Men's" and "Women's"


The outcome of this debate is:
Support.
based on the consensus of 16/1/0.

  • Support. - Sue Anne 02:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I support this because using male and female is too "proper" and boys and ladies is too casual. Even though ladies works, women is best; it also has been the standard for all of the articles (under my knowledge). --Jared [T]/[+] 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. This topic should be closed now unless someone else has something to say, because it should be obvious that Men and Women would be the thing to use. --Jared [T]/[+] 02:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Jared, this issue isn't as cut and dry as it may seem. Many Olympic Games pages have been incorrectly referring to "Women's" as "Ladies'" so it is good we clarify that it should be "Women's" and not "Ladies'." It seems silly, I know, but on Wikipedia, sometimes we do have to spell things out, as simple as they may seem. --Caponer 02:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Again, I like the idea of Men's and Women's. I mean, Ladies Hockey doesn't sound right, Womens Hockey does. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Standard nomenclature. -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems standard. Don't know why it is being debated. Hohohob 06:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Is standard. As Hohohob. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I believe it depends on the sport. In most sports "Women's" is the standard, but I believe in Figure Skating (and possibly a few others), "Ladies'" is an acceptable (and even preferable) form. Maelwys 12:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You could have a point here. I have seen this happen in figure skating, although I still believe Women's would be better. Does anyone else want to chime in? --Jared [T]/[+] 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Also this does tend (in a minor way) support those who say the Figure Skating is not a sport, it is using a gender term which could imply the genteel world of the arts. (forget I said anything - still think the Men / Women should be standard though) :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. According to the IOC page here: [3], the IOC uses Women when referring to figure skating.--Josilot 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Ignore this, because both "ladies" and "women" are used on the page.--Josilot 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. - Sort of a gray area there, Josilot... If you read the paragraph in the page that you referenced, it says Ladies'. tiZom(2¢) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment. Good catch, I was only looking at the bottom where is said "individual Women." In the text it also says "ladies singles" (note: it says this without an apostrophe, even though it also has "men's singles" with an apostrophe). I guess the IOC doesn't have a standard for this.--Josilot 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Then I think it should stay women, for all "sports". --Jared [T]/[+] 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm convinced that wikipedia should be united with one way to name gendered events, and I think "Men's" and "Women's" sounds the most appropriate.--Josilot 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. -Standard stuff.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Although the IOC apparently uses "ladies" for figure skating, I see no harm and being consistent and using "men's and "women's throughout. Crunch 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Medal counts should include ONLY medals and not Top-8 placements.


The outcome of this debate is:
Support.
based on the consensus of 14/5/0.

  • Support. I noticed that the 2006 Winter Olympics medal count not only has medals won by each national team but also includes "Top-8 placements" (fourth through eighth places). I believe the article is named "medal count" for a reason. These tables are not named "honorable mention count." Medal counts are for medals, period. --Caponer 03:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It took me a while to figure out what the heck that was, but I don't see a need for this anyway. I find it redudant and pointless to be on a page about medal count. If there is a page for official standings, then by all means, include that, here it justs adds clutter and makes it really confusing. --Omnieiunium 03:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I like what has been done now, with the two seperate tables; one with only medals and the other with top 8 + medals. Looks a lot better. --Omnieiunium 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. expand for all medal tables (such as on Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics), not just main article ones. -- Jonel | Speak 03:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. - Does this include medal tallies on individual country pages, such as Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics? Sue Anne 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Agree, but by Caponer's logic above, then we should list the medal count by total medals won. After all, to paraphrase him, it's named "medal count" for a reason. These tables are not named "gold medal count."70.49.125.45 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. "Anonymous user", we've all agreed above (you should re-read it) that national teams should be ranked in order of the types of medals they have, then by the amount of each respective medal. I referred to it as a "medal count" after the bulk of users had already decided to rank medal counts via gold medals, which would mean that me using "medal counts" would imply that they be counted by golds, silvers, then bronzes. Again, many registered contributors have decided to defer to the IOC's practice of ranking countries by the quality then quantity of their medals. I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would use a registered account and continue this debate with us. --Caponer 05:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - Medal counts are medal counts. Hohohob 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - for Medal counts Yes, for Results tables (that include medals places) No, there are many examples of those. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The Olympic podium is only for Top 3 finishes, so the medal count should reflect that. This isn't like the Commonwealth Games? that also has the 4th-6/7th place finishers at the medal ceremony. --Madchester 16:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why not just leave the top 8 there?? It doesn't affect the rankings but does provide some extra information. It doesn't take away from the charts in anyway, it only adds to them I don't understand how it confuses some people, I think it's pretty clear what they are. I enjoyed seeing that extra information there the other day, but now that it's gone I think you've taken away something that made it better. (This vote was left by User:70.25.25.53)
  • Comment. I agree that the medal count page should be restricted to medal counts, and I agree that top 8 finishes are extra information that some users will appreciate. We should have both, i.e. create a 2006 Winter Olympics top 8 placements page, and maybe have a link to it on the medal count page for people to be able to find it if they want it.--Josilot 18:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. But see, this is where it gets hairy. Everyone wants something so we try to give in to what will please everyone. And this is wrong. We need to agree on one thing and one thing only; if that means someone has to give in, then that's what he have to do. It doesn't make sense to make a page for each person's whim. Jared 19:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Agreed. I was surprised to see a fourth place finish listed once. When I see someone *just* finish fourth, I feel for him or her, but then remind myself that there were *3* finishing spots that got medals. That's already a very fair system.--Don Sowell 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For expanded medal table, I think it's a good idea to see how well countries are doing outside the medals themselves. On the shortened version, of course make it simplified. There is nothing wrong with trying to expand the information at Wikipedia, and I think this is somehing where we have to be bold. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I think there are some big problems with expanding the tables beyond the medal winners. What is the cutoff? Some sports have 8 finalists, some have 6, etc. It would be impossible to create a top 8/10/whatever list of results across all sports. It seems to me that the proponents of a "Top 8/10/whatever" list have an agenda -- they want to feel good about their country's results for the "close misses". That is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The other point I want to make is that even including a "Top 8/10" list on a Country at the XXXX Olympics page is also problematic. It has the same issue I described above, plus it will detract from the readability of the page, since those results tend to be repeated underneath anyway. For countries like the USA, Germany, Russia, etc., the pages become very difficult to read and to manage. My preference would be to summarize medal winners only at the top of the page, and to highlight "Top X" rankings in the per-sport detailed results underneath. Andrwsc 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It's a medal count. Besides, listing the top 8 makes updating and verifing the tables much harder. --Mx2000 20:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I disagree. It's not hard at all. I will address the cutoff. The minumum amount is 8 people/teams per event. This makes for an obvious cutoff. It is not an issue. I propose a compromise, because I think this is relevant and interesting information for readers. We either create a new page, or we add a section to the bottom of the current page. And wouldn't you agree that it is far more informative than 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Why is 8 an obvious cutoff point? How do you handle rowing events, which have 6 lanes in the final? The same situation existed for swimming in older Olympics. There is NO obvious cutoff that applies to all sports and all games. My point is that it makes the most sense to include top X only on a per sport basis, so I would support having extended listings on the "Sport at the XXXX Olympics" pages (along with a medal table for that sport only), but I don't think it belongs on the whole games or "Country at the XXXX Olympics" pages. Andrwsc 20:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. So if I support this movement, then am I against having the top 8 listed on a different page, or are these two issues separate as of this point?
    • Comment. Realistically, I really don't think there should be 2 or more pages relaying the same informaiton. I also don't think there should be 2 or more tables per page. It need to be one way and this is how we're deciding it. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I beg to disagree. I think we are now deciding upon the main page on medals count. Wikipedia should have room for much more ways of presenting the data on many more pages, for those interesting in editing it and those interesting in reading it. John Anderson 22:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Even though I don't think that top 8 placements should be on medal count pages, I am not convinced that the information should not be posted to Wikipedia in a separate article, although this needn't be a convention. I think the convention should be to separate medal counts and top 8 counts.--Josilot 23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Question. Could someone please explain to me the logic of using a Top-8 count? --Jared [T]/[+] 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I can't see where Top 8 results would be of general interest. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well, because it's called medal count. Blur4760 12:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose. I like the rank by medal colour to be the most. If we are going to look at ranks by top X spots, I think top 8 finishes is more useful than top 3 finishes. —Arctic.gnome 19:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. WHY exactly EIGHT??? (Why not 10, or 12, or 5, or...?) John Anderson 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I would very much like to see the extra information of top 8 placements.. or top n, if you have it; it's useful information that a large number of people would find interesting (especially smaller countries who don't have any medals, but have a 4th or 7th finisher). because really, why would we have an arbitrary cut-off at top-3 finishes? why don't we just list the gold? in any case, i can't really vote to oppose this question.. it would be like saying "apple counts should include more than just apples". but with a better worded question, using another name (e.g. 'results table'), i would strongly support the extra information. Mlm42 11:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. On closer inspection, it's not actually 'extra information', since it appears to be on the individual country pages anyway. so, i suppose what i strongly support is organizing all those numbers into a nice big table. it makes comparison much easier (otherwise most countries will be tied at zero medals). Mlm42 12:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I see your point, I would also find this interesting, but I still don't understand why 8 should be the magic number. 3 is because these are the ones getting medals. John Anderson 14:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. heh, yes, perhaps i wasn't clear.. i was pointing out that they only assign medals to the top 3 finishers.. why 3? that seems like an arbitrary choice.. why not 4, and have a platinum medal? or only 2, and scrap bronze? :) Mlm42 13:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. For the record: from Olympic Games:

"...from 1948 onward athletes placing fourth, fifth and sixth have received certificates which became officially known as "victory diplomas;" since 1976 the medal winners have received these also, and in 1984 victory diplomas for seventh- and eighth-place finishers were added..." So there's a reason for top 8...

    • Comment. Yeah, so that the people who don't get the prestegious honor of getting a medal don't feel as bad as they would...haha. There's no reason to include a top 8 count! --Jared [T]/[+] 20:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Oh, do you have to just laugh about it? I thought this was a serious discussion, and now when someone (but who??) has presented a reason for the number of 8, I find it interesting. I acctually now think we could have a table on the top 8's in all events, though perhaps preferably on a different page. John Anderson 22:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. Why should a "medal" count include something that has nothing to do with medals? I mean come on. And I noticed on the 2006 page that the idea of a top-8 doesn't even show a noticible change in ranking. A top-8 seems to be the idea for the "politically correct" person to show that there is an inequality factor between big countries like the US and Norway and little ones. Further, a top-8 count is quite a confusing jumble of numbers for someone who doesn't even know what it is ( I didn't until I read the comments from this debate and asked someone); the person looking at it won't know what he/she is looking at. A plain and simple medal count is familiar to everyone. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment. I've already noted my objection to trying to collate an overall "Top N" set of results, but I have to shake my head at this new "reason" why a Top 8 table should be added. Basically the comment states that a top 8 could only apply to games from 1984 and beyond! It would have to be a top 6 table for 1948-80 games. I repeat: the only logical place for a "Top N" table is on a per-sport, per-games basis (i.e. the "Sport at the XXXX Olympics" page on Wikipedia. It is impossible to create a table that includes all sports (i.e. on the "Country at the XXXX Olympics" pages, and it is impossible to create a table that spans multiple games, where the placings differ (e.g. 6 lane swimming pools preceded 8 lane pools). Heck, for some sports, it is also impossible to provide a specific ranking! In boxing, the most you can say about quarter-final losers is that there is a 4-way tie for 5th place (in the same manner that both semi-final losers now get a bronze medal each). It baffles me why the folks who oppose this convention (and want a Top 8 table) fail to understand these simple points.... Andrwsc 23:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Comment. Perhaps because there already exists such rewriting of Olympic history, even if you go by only the "official" results. The 1906 games were retroactively declared to not be Olympics; 3rd place medals weren't awarded until 1904; teams weren't required to represent a single country until 1908; et cetera. I will agree that if we go beyond bronze that using top 6 tables for the 1948-80 games and top 8 tables for the 1984 and later games is the most that should be done. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. (returning to one bullet for ease of reading.) I totally agree with you Andrwsc. A top 8, while confusing enough to read anyway, would be even more confusing to impliment. It is possible to do it on the individual pages, as you stated, but I think that if you have all of the results there anyway, it would be useless and more work to create on every page of the 40 some-odd olympics that there have been. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A seperate table could be used to show top 8 placements as well as medal won as in the 2006 Winter Olympics medal count. -- Nick C 17:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. That's exactly what it is, a medal count, not a "top-8" count. Kntrabssi 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Thecrookedcap 21:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Do not add Wikipedia links for every athlete listed in competition results unless there is an existing page for the athlete


The outcome of this debate is:
Oppose.
based on the consensus of 16/1/1.

  • Support. The current style convention appears that every athlete's name is wikilinked, but this leads to a very high number of redlinks, especially for non-current athletes. Andrwsc 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I believe that every athlete that participates in an Olympic Games deserves at least an article stub, so I have no problem with the redlinks. Where there is a redlink, there is potential for someone to see it and remedy the situation by creating an article or a stub for it. I agree with your point to some extent, though, because a list of redlinks is not attractive. --Caponer 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I agree with you in principle, which is why I ended up following this style for all the pages I have recently created (most of the "Canada at the xxxx Olympics" pages). However, following this style for the historical games results leads to a very excessive number of redlinks. People have been adding stubs for winners in the current 2006 games, which is great, but honestly, I can't see many of the large number of redlinks for past games being resolved anytime soon. It's going to be more than enough work just to get all the summary information for each sport and country into Wikipedia.... Andrwsc 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one. I realize that there are probably thousands of these red links, but the thing is that if each of these athletes were to be resolved, it would be near impossible to re-link them. And I think that making these athlete pages is a project that someone will eventually undertake. tiZom(2¢) 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Like tiZom said, and also I have already made a few page stubs to get rid of some red links. Having them will definitely encourage people to contribute.--Josilot 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Redlinks encourage people to realize that the project still needs work.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Nicely put, Blnguyen. And that's exactly what wikipedia is and always will be: a work in progress. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Oppose. Agreed. And also kudos to Josilot (see a few lines up) - you proved our point. Reuvenk 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - Eventually there may be articles and with no link, we will never no if an article has been added. Add a disambiguation page if necessary if an article already exists for an identical named person. Crunch 23:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - For all the reasons stated above. Sue Anne 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - I categorically oppose it.
  • Comment. Ok, I see all the opposition, so I will keep doing the same thing! However, we might need to put a cap on which athletes we wikilink. Some event pages are very detailed (i.e. show the complete results), and if we get to that level for all events, thats > 10000 athletes for a summer games and > 2000 athletes for a winter games. If we do that for all past games, we're talking about well over 100,000 pages.... 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I don't want to be the one who decides where to put that cap, which athletes are more important than other athletes, which sports are more important than other sports.--Josilot 00:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Well, medal winners would be an obvious first step. There have been about 16000 medals awarded for all games in total, so with team sports and team events (e.g. relays) taken into account, my guess would be about 20000 people. Andrwsc 01:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Neutralvote I hate when articles have tons of red wikilinks, I feel it makes the article difficult to read. However, I do see the view that it would take time to go back and re-link all the athletes. I'll make up my mind later, or until I read more debate. --Omnieiunium 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Redlinks are absolutely fundamental to the improvement of Wikipedia. Winning an Olympic medal is an automatic Wiki notability qualifier.--Mais oui! 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Making rules to limit the red links would be counterproductive to the expansion of WP, create a headache of the creation of rules that would govern when a link should be made and should not be made, and be very questionable in any real benefit that it may have. -- Don Sowell 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. On the contrary! Always make links. John Anderson 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. zellin t / c 02:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nick C 18:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Redlinks are useful. —Ruud 21:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Redlinks are useful, especially if the athlete wins a medal, he deserves an article for sure in that case.--Tone 12:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. - as above redlists are indications of work needed, and prompt for that activity to take place. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 13:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] The abbreviation for a metric length should be written in the following way: (choose to support only one)

Units Wikipedia articles are intended for people anywhere in the world. Try to make articles simple to read and translate.

  • Conversions should generally not be removed.
  • If editors cannot agree about the sequence of units, put the source value first and the converted value second.
  • Spell out source units in text. Use digits and unit symbols for converted values and for measurements in tables. For example, "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long".
  • Converted values should use a similar level of precision as the source value. For example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth", not "(236,121 mi)".
  • Use standard abbreviations when using symbols. For example, metre is m, kilogram is kg, inch is in (not " or ″), foot is ft (not ' or ′).
  • Do not append an s for plurals of unit abbreviations. For example, kg, in, yd, lb not kgs, ins, yds, lbs.
  • Some non-metric units have more than one version. Be specific. For example, U.S. gallon or imperial gallon rather than just gallon. Similarly, use nautical mile or statute mile rather than just mile in aviation, space, sea and in some other contexts.
  • The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol, for example "25 kg" not "25kg". Use   for the space (25 kg) to ensure that it does not break lines.
  • Question. What does Am. and Br. mean? - Nick C 18:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. American vs British spelling of Metre. Though I think the concept of an American spelling of Metre is pretty funny, since American's seldom recognize the metric system, except in science. ;-) Maelwys 19:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Thanks for clearing that up. - Nick C 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 1: 1500m

  • Support. Seems standard to me tiZom(2¢) 21:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Keep in mind that the titles are not going to be just "1500 m" - they will be "1500 m Freestyle", for example. The little m looks like it's just floating in there, not referring to anything. I understand that wikipedia has suggested guidelines for that sort of thing, but they are just that - suggestions. I think that in this case, it makes more sense to leave the title without a space. tiZom(2¢) 19:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes, this option seems the best. (on a different not, it is also the easiest to write.) --Jared [T]/[+] 21:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. JD 14:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nick C 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Thecrookedcap 00:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Anderal 04:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Rascalb 07:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. It seems appropriate to deviate from the naming convention in this instance. Shadow007 05:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. 67.68.240.4 10:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 2: 1500 m

  • Support. – This is the standard way of writing according to the International System of Units. John Anderson 22:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Given WP:MOSNUM#Measurements posted by Jonel. Sue Anne 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Hmm, I retract my previous support for no space, since a source has been found for Wikipedia guidelines. However, I note that the results database at www.olympic.org uses the alternate format (no space), and I still think it looks better with no space... The Wikipedia guidelines trump those reasons, IMO. Andrwsc 23:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. zellin t / c 02:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Follows Wikipedia standards and avoids the problem with -er/-re. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Wiki standars, prevents British/American nonsense, corresponds to titles. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 3: 1500 meters (Am.)

[edit] Option 4: 1500 metres (Br.)

  • Support. This seems to be the most reasonable option, as it states clearly the purpose, and avoids any confusion due to abbreviations. It would not be corrected like "1500m" vs. "1500 m".
  • Question. You forgot to sign your vote. John Anderson 10:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] All instances of the words "rank", "ranked", and "ranking" should be replaced with "sort", "sorted", and "sorting" on all medal count pages.

  • Support. It seems like a lot of the controversy over medal sorting is because people see it as a way to rank countries, and this should be avoided. Wikipedia is not ranking countries, but is providing information to do with as people choose. Saying that a medal count is "sorted" in a certain way will remove the negative connotation of the word "ranked." This will help appeal to NPOV, and also falls in line with the IOC's policy of not recognizing that the countries have been ranked.--Josilot 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. This is certainly a good idea. I see most of the debate centering around the competition that the word "rank" implies. Moving to the more neutral "sort" will help reduce this.--Don Sowell 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this is an irrelevant debate now, until we decide which format we are going to use on our medals pages. This will come after. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. This debate should have been settled before any of the others, and since it hasn't, it needs to be settled now before a format can be decided.--Josilot 23:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose. Part of me wants to say "rank" because that is what it should be: if someone is looking at a medal table, no matter what size the country is, they are going to be looking to see who is in first, whether that first means that they have more medals or more golds. But part of me wants to say sort because it isn't all too fair. In the end though, I think that rank is better because of what I said above....people want (to see) competition...plain and simple! --Jared [T]/[+] 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. If, as you say, people will see competition anyway, then it should say "sort" and let people decide for themselves. Also, changing "rank" to "sort" means that Wikipedia does not imply a competition, which should be true if it isn't.--Josilot 01:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. "Wikipedia (WP) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only."  ;) -- Jonel | Speak 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. But the great thing about Wikipedia, Jonel, is that its law isn't set in stone. Maybe from doing this we can get a new concensus of the people, something that everyone agrees on. --Jared [T]/[+] 20:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. I think you might have taken my above jocular comment too seriously. It was meant as a parody of the IOC disclaimer at the bottom of all their medal table pages. Thus the quotes and the ";)". I actually don't really have a strong opinion on this matter ("rank" vs. "sort") as I don't think this particular issue is all that important. Others do, so I'll let you guys hash this one out. -- Jonel | Speak 21:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. rather silly and foolish. My comments opposing the alphabetizing of the countries fits here also.Rickywiki 08:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As rickywiki said, this is rather silly and foolish. I know that we aren't ment to rank countries, but sorting countries just doesn't sound right. I haven't see many strong arguments to change to sort, so I will remain oppose. --Omnieiunium 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Neutralvote John Anderson 02:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. it depends what the meaning of "is" is.- Bill Clinton
  • Oppose. - may be logical - but goes against prevailing usage and will seem unnatural. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Template:Neutralvote Nick C 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. 67.68.240.4 10:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Use Turin instead of Torino to refer to the city on English Wikipedia pages.

Note: This does not mean when referring to the games; supporting this would still mean the games would be referred to as the "Torino 2006" games.

I think this should be brought to the attention of this audience. I've seen several new pages that refer to the current games in "Torino, Italy" etc. Of course, this is wrong, despite what NBC's marketing says. As per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), we should be consistent and refer to "Turin" on English language pages. Similarly, we're not going to refer to medalists at the 1960 summer games in "Roma", or the 1972 games in "München". The base page at 2006 Winter Olympics explains the naming issue well, as does the page for Turin. I just want to make sure that as we continue to fill in stubs for countries, athletes and events at the 2006 games that we use the proper city name on English Wikipedia pages. --Andrwsc 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is great you brough this up. Actually, when I created this page, I called it Olympic conventions (disregarding the medals tables in total) because I knew that things more than the medals tables would come into view. And this is one I totally forgot about. Personally, I believe that they are the Torino games, but when you bring up the fact that you couldn't call them Roma 1960 games etc, you make a good point. I would still have to stay neutral, though, because I believe the name of the games is special to the city in which they are played. I will move this to the main page now because it is such a great issue that needs to be addressed. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. --Josilot 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. zellin t / c 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think that the references to the city should stay written as Torino instead of Turin, as that is how the games' organizers have chosen to refer to them. I don't think that Andrwsc's argument about Munich and Rome holds water as the IOC refers to the games in Munich and Rome as the Munich and Rome games, while the current games are the Torino, not Turin games. Rascalb 08:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • After a re-read of the proposed convention, it seems that I misunderstood what it was all about. I now change my oppose to a neutral.
      Template:Neutralvote Rascalb 07:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The city's name is Turin in English, and this is the English language Wikipedia. John Anderson 10:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think it depends on the context that you're using. They are the Turino 2006 games (according to all the literature and the logo) if you're referring to the name of the games, but they are being held in Turin, if you're referring to the location of the games. Maelwys 12:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. JD 14:27, 24 February 2006
  • Support. Is this that hard? The city is Turin. That is the name. Unless it is taking place in Cote D'Ivoire, we should use the name of the place in English. It is the Torino Olympics, but it takes place in Turin. There. Simple enough.... Bsd987 16:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As this is English Wikipedia, we should refer to cities by their names in English. - Nick C 18:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As per Rascalb. They are officially called the Torino games, so they should be referred to as such. Jared 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. The games may be called "Torino 2006", but the city must be called "Turin" on English Wikipedia pages. There is a distinction. That was the intent of my proposal (re-read my original wordig above). I've seen so many incorrect references to the city name as "Torino" that I felt it should be brought up. This appears a lot on athlete's pages, where the author writes something like "Joe Bloggs won the gold medal for something at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino, Italy". That needs to be fixed. Andrwsc 21:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
All right, I agree with you there on that last example. --Jared [T]/[+] 22:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Support for reasons already expressed by others. They are the "Torino Games" in Turin. Shadow007 05:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Archive of discussions.

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] A standard format and location should be agreed upon for complete results tables (please provide suggestions, as there are currently no standards.)

  • Comment. There are a few different formats floating around for complete results. The way I have been doing it is to create a new page for results from each discipline with only the medalists on the sport's page. For instance the men's singles medalists for luge are on the Luge page while I have put the complete results on a seperate page. In addition, the tables should be standardized including heading wording etc. as to look similar from sport to sport. --Anderal 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with your logic. --Caponer 06:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Definitely should have a standard. Take a look at Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics to see the format I've been using for main pages. -- Jonel | Speak 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Jonel, I really like your format. I think a large table of medal winners is much better than having individual tables for each event. The row heading for an event can link to an event specific page with all the details, if warranted. Andrwsc 21:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. - I like that idea, I just wish that the table had even-sized boxes - I'm a big advocate of things that look even :o) tiZom(2¢) 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Obviously a standard format should be agreen upon. Agreeing to use a standard format isn't a convention. The convention should be to choose a format that the community likes.--Josilot 23:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. - How's the one I linked up above? Compact at two rows per event, links to all the event subpages, makes it easy to look vertically for gold(/silver/bronze) or horizontally for each event. -- Jonel | Speak 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree. I've had to reformat tons of articles so they follow a set standard, since this is like any other article, I don't see why not for consistency reasons. --Omnieiunium 18:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Support. - but only if we have a standard per purpose, and don't try and squeeze out different presentations of information. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 13:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Support. I agree with Anderal's suggestion, having a separate page for medalists and one with complete results. -- Nick C 18:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree wholeheartedly with this suggestion. This would create both an accessible page for the casual fan and something for the hardcore to look at. Additionally, some pages (I'm thinking specifically of Ice hockey at the 2006 Winter Olympics which have become so bogged down with information that it is not only difficult to edit, but also hard to read.Thecrookedcap 17:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yeah, it makes me not want to read a page like the one above. I went to that article and I just scrolled down, jaw agape, because of all of the information that's there. I didn't even know where to start. Its almost too much. Actually, most of the info on that page should be on sub-pages. --Jared [T]/[+] 18:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.