Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Medal counts, templates etc. in respect to Germany

I received the following message from User:Matthead on my own talk page, but I thought the discussion would be of interest to this project, so I'm reposting and replying here:

As you seem to be involved in the matter, I'll tell you first before starting on talk pages etc.
  • I'm convinced that Summer Olympics medal count, Winter Olympics medal count, and Total Olympics medal count should be merged into one article as they cover very related subjects which are very sensitive regarding WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Footnote remarks, caveats and especially talk should be concentrated on one page to avoid having to discuss the same matters three times
  • statements on Wikipedia regarding Germany (I don't know details about other nations) are often flawed, show ignorance, misunderstandings, or even open hostility towards aspects of German history, e.g. by calling short lived political entities under foreign influence "nations"
  • the inofficial terms West Germany and East Germany need to be replaced by the official Federal Republic of Germany (or simply Germany) and German Democratic Republic as they prove time and again to be misleading, especially since it is often claimed that these states did "unite to form Germany". Nothing new was created, the number of states in the FRG just grew in 1957 and 1990, similar to the number of US states grewing from 45 to 50 states between 1896 and 1959. The former West Germany and the current Germany are identical in most relevant aspects, and not different as the names (and the people by which they are used) suggest.
The current medal count articles are highly doubtful, as the IOC itself does not publish official all-time counts, and the IOC website gives a disclaimer for its informal single event tables: "The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only.". If Wikipedia choses to present medal count articles for information purposes, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR policies have to be respected. This means citing lists published by respectable sources is more relevant than original research calculations. For example, German magazine Der Spiegel ranks Russia first ahead of Germany in winter games based on the Gold medals score of 121 vs. 119 [1] (the total medal score preferred by some would favour Germany 329 vs. 294). Where are references or links for the lists kept by "IAAF and BBC, but not by NBC and CNN" anyway? Apparently, only tables covering single Olympic Games are listed on their websites, with CNN/SI being the only one presenting a readily available All-Time Medal Count until Nagano 1998 at least, in which they seem to have split the United team results into Germany 1908-1994 and East Germany 1956-1988. Other links: [2] [3] [4] [5]
In case of Germany (one editor even talks about "Germanies"), the IOC, despite using five(!) different codes in total for German teams, clearly states that Germany joined the IOC in 1895 [6] as one of the first states to do so, acknowledging a continuation in sports despite changes in political history. They also state e.g. in the table for 1988 "Federal Republic of Germany (1950-1990, "GER" since) FRG that the Federal Republic of Germany continued the German history after 1990 when the separate German Democratic Republic ceased to exist. The East German institutions, citizens and athletes joined the FRG in 1990, and since the established GER code is used again. This continuation is widely accepted, e.g. regarding similar continuous German membership in post-war organizations like UNO, NATO, EU, and also in many organisations that have a much longer history. This means that in retrospect it is de facto acknowledged that the FRG also represented Germany in times when parts of the German population had to live in rival puppet states under foreign occupation.
Also, what did the United Team of Germany represent, if not the united Germany? Apparently, the code GER was used then, and EUA was only introduced recently for unknown reasons. Thus, at least the results of the teams listed under the codes of GER, FRG and EUA should also be presented in accumulation, as they always represented the largest part of Germany, and never competed against each other. In contrast, GDR and SAA represented competing teams that only existed due to foreign influence.
In its current form, the count reminds of repeated attempts by some Wikipedia editors to introduce a separate Talk:West Germany national football team, claiming that only the now defunct West Germany team won World Cups, and that Germany won only an EC in 1996, even tough FIFA and UEFA clearly recognize the results and the history of the DFB from early 1900s to present, with additional independent Saarland and East German teams existing for some time.
On can argue whether it is fair to simply add the GDR results to the other German results, as e.g. both German entries could have won a medal each in a single team event ( e.g. Munich 1972, 4x100m relay Women, FRG winning Gold and GDR Silver). It certainly was not the choice of the Germans to be cunningly split in order to have the chance to score twice. In many cases, a unified stronger team might have won medals in contests in which none of the separate teams managed to succeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthead (talk • contribs)

You raise several points here, and I'll try to address each of them:

On the total medal count pages

You make a good point about merging these pages to reduce maintenance. I'll go one step further - I'd even consider deleting them all. Despite my work on those articles to reduce the OR-ness and reduce POV, I'm still not personally comfortable with them. Additional clarification follows.

On statements regarding Germany and the use of the word "nation"

If you see any incorrect statement about the history of German states in article prose, please feel free to correct it. As for "nation", don't think it implies sovereign state. In Olympic articles, "nations" are the set of athletes represented by one National Olympic Committee. Therefore, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, etc. are "nations" at the Olympics, despite their political status.

On the use of "West Germany" and "East Germany"

We understand that these are not the correct names of these nations, but we agreed to use the common name for Wikipedia Olympic articles. It's the same reason why we have Soviet Union at the 1988 Summer Olympics and not Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the 1988 Summer Olympics (or even, "...at the Games of the XXIV Olympiad"!!). We agreed to use "Iran" instead of "Islamic Republic of Iran", "Libya" instead of "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", etc. Don't be offended by the use of the common short name in article titles or results tables. The correct place to indicate the official full name of the nation (if desired) is in the introductory prose paragraph in the appropriate "...at the Olympics" articles.

On combined medal counts for Germany

Our policy of not combining counts for multiple NOCs came about as a result of trying to reduce the amount of original research and non-neutral POV on those articles. Germany's situation is a perfect example. We are quite convinced that combining FRG and GDR for 1968-1988 totals would be wrong, since they had two independent National Olympic Committees for those years, and therefore had a total of more entrants (and medalists) in many events compared to a single NOC. As you point out, perhaps a combined team would be even stronger, but that is total speculation and obviously non-encyclopedic for that reason.

So, what about the United Team (not "Unified Team") years? As you point out, surely that is a single German team and at the time (before country codes were standardized), official reports refer to "Germany" and "GER". "Equipe Unifiée Allemande" was retroactively added. Presumably the IOC wanted to make a distinction between a combined team from two NOCs vs. one team from a single NOC (as in the "GER" years), but that's just my guess.

I thing the strongest case could be made to combine the FRG results with GER, as this is a continuation of the same NOC. But there's the dilemma — if we do that, we open a can of worms. Why stop there? Does that give us the justification to combine Czechoslovakia (TCH) with Czech Republic (CZE) and USSR (URS) with Russia (RUS), for example? The "successor NOC logic" would apply, but what then of TCH medals won solely by Slovakian athletes or URS medals won solely by Ukranians, Latvians, etc. What a mess that would be trying to retroactively sort out the "correct" totals!

Basically, the problem is that if we make any interpretive or judgement decision, then we add some non-NPOV or OR to the article, so we decided to make none of these kinds of decisions.

I think the comparison to FIFA is imprecise, because as you point out, while FIFA keeps records that span predecessor and successor states, the IOC does not keep records that span multiple Games. Perhaps this is a good reason for us to delete those total medal count articles. I think the set of individual Games medal count articles can stand alone without the three (or one merged) "total count" articles.

On the accuracy of medal counts

I agree that there are multiple conflicting sources of medal counts. However, I strongly diagree that the Wikipedia totals are "highly doubtful"! I spent considerable time a few months ago cross-checking all these results. I went through all the individual sports at each Games to verify all those specific medal tables (e.g. Cycling at the 1928 Summer Olympics, with 8 nations and 6 events). The primary sources for these pages (and for all our work) are the IOC medal database (here) and all the official reports from each Games (PDF files all downloadable from here). I even found a handful of discrepancies in these primary sources (such as Dorothy Greenhough-Smith's bronze medal in Figure skating at the 1908 Summer Olympics showing up for "GER" instead of "GBR" in the IOC medal database), and noted those differences (such as the footnote on 1908 Summer Olympics medal count). I built an Excel spreadsheet that lists the per-sport per-Games counts for each NOC. I use it to quickly create summary tables like you see on Finland at the Winter Olympics. My spreadsheet cross-references with the individual Games IOC lists, so I am certain of its accuracy. Your Der Speigel reference matches our Wikipedia totals if you say that Germany = GER+FRG+GDR+EUA = 119 gold and Russia = RUS+URS+EUN = 121 gold. However, I have problems with those calculations for reasons described above, so despite a good source listing those totals, I would be reluctant to do the same thing on Wikipedia.

I hope this answers your message, and I invite further discussion, especially on the idea of deleting the three total medal count articles. Andrwsc 19:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

On the structure of Olympic results articles and infoboxes

This isn't something specifically addressed in your message to me, but I know you have been working on some of the "...at the Olympics" articles, so I thought I should explain our work in this area. Basically, we have individual articles for each nation (NOC) at each Games. There are ~3200 of these articles! These articles are linked from the "Participating nations" section of the main Games pages, plus from every results page where we have used templates such as {{flagIOCathlete}}. If you click on the country code after the name, you go to the appropriate article. Additional navigation is provided by the infobox on the right side of those pages, where you can go to the article for any other Games for that same nation, or by the box at the bottom of the article, where you can go to any other nation at these same Games.

This system works really well, but the one area which is somewhat neglected is the set of summary articles above them. We started out with the idea of having 2, perhaps 3 summary articles per nation: "... at the Summer Olympics", "... at the Winter Olympics", and "... at the Olympics". To be honest, I think this is confusing and overkill. I'd like to compress that down to a single "... at the Olympics" article. Now, this is the one area where I think we can perform some sort of aggregation of related NOCs. Specifically, I think a single Germany at the Olympics article could cover all the material now covered in:

This could be a very well-written article, covering all the background of the separate teams, the United Team, etc. I could even envision a semi-combined (GER+FRG+EUA) medal table in this article, without stepping too far into non-NPOV or OR territory. If you'd like to take this on, I'd be supportive in helping you.

As for the current situation, the idea is that the infoboxes show all the appearances of this NOC. The "Related appearance" section is used to show summary-level links to direct predecessor or successor NOCs only. Therefore "parallel" NOCs are generally excluded. For example, {{Infobox Olympics Russia}} has links to the URS and EUN pages, but not to any of the other ex-Soviet republics (even though they might be considered "related"). That's why, for example, I reverted some of your changes to the various Germany infoboxes. Saarland shouldn't appear in the East Germany box, to cite one thing I reverted. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 02:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


I agree with most of your points. The "highly doubtful" refered to the OR concern on which we agree, not the accuracy of the counts. In short, I propose:

  • to merge the articles, and clearly state that the counts do not reflect official IOC policy
  • to keep an article on counts anyway, as the issue will surely pop up again in 2008 for the next games anyway
  • to include references to tables compiled by Spiegel, CNN etc. as the existence of these tables are the only proper reason to keep a Wiki article at all (Wikipedia:Notability)
  • to remove rank numbers (who wants to be told that his country is 43rd?)
  • to insert the compiled numbers by Spiegel etc. at the appropriate position, and with disclaimer

The issue is (luckily!) rather simple for us Germans: teams split 1968-1988, since united again, so the wound is healing and only a scar remains. Other cases are reverse, formerly united teams that are split for over a decade now, and likely remain so. As for the "mess that would be trying to retroactively sort out the correct totals!", there is no need that Wiki editors preemptively assess all the medal winner bios. If someone wants to have a certain count added/changed/whatever, e.g. a high jump medal won by a Hobbit while the Shire was a part of Mordor, it should be done if proper sources are given for the athlete's hobbitness. Also, I see no big problem when a Mordor medal is counted towards Mordor and Shire in these cases, to keep all Middlearthlings happy. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: is it at least known when the IOC introduced EUA, if not why? -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I read most of this; it's quite long. Anyhow, I agree with most of the most that I read. The total medal counts should be deleted because of their inevitable inaccuracies; all similar Country at the x Olympics articles should be merged, unless they are humongous like GBR or USA or FRA, in which case it is alright to have separate Winter/Summer pages. And I think that's all that's worth mentioning. └Jared┘┌t┐  21:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


From WikiProject_Germany

A discussion started there under West Germany, East Germany and Germany were/are how many seperate states/nations?, it is continued with my answer here:

Let's face it, the articles covering Germans at the Olympics are a mess, thats why I have proposed several mergers. One intro says "West Germany (Federal Republic of Germany) competed at the Olympic Games for the last time as an independent nation at the 1988 Summer Olympics". Yikes, Federal Republic of Germany lost independence after 1988? My general problem with the use of West Germany on Wikipedia is that too many people expose a lack of knowledge regarding German history, especially the continuity of the FRG after 1990. Sadly, the IOC itself falls under this "no clue" category, as they used or use inconsistent naming with FRG/GER. The move of all "West Germany at ..." to "Germany at ..." would make this clearer here. Also, I can see only one Germany in United Team of Germany. It's not United Team of Germanies, nor United Team of German states, United Team of German NOCs, United Team of Germans or United German Team. BTW, regarding the German NOC, there was a change in May 2006, when the NOK and the DSB merged to DOSB. Do we have to brace for yet another code in 2008? -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well go ahead and be bold and fix up those sections of prose! But please don't change the article names for "West Germany at the year Olympics". Those names (and the use of "GER" and "FRG" codes) align with our primary sources and have consensus here. Thanks, Andrwsc 03:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Starting with Germany's very first post-WW2 participation, I have to disagree. As you stated on Talk:1952 Winter Olympics medal count, the IOC database [7] currently(!) has German medals separated into FRG (two Gold by Bavarian bobsledders) and GER (all others), while the report of 1952 only speaks of Germany (no West German(y), no Federal or FRG in the whole text). In fact, at the IOC meeting "Several important matters were discussed, such as East-German participation in Olympic Games, recognition of an Olympic Committee for the Chinese People's Republic...". This shows that the GDR which had founded their NOC less than year ago was not as close to recognition as China, with the IOC pondering East German participation - surely within in the team of the only recognized NOC for Germany, representing all of Germany. At that time (in fact, always), the GDR was hardly more than a separatist Soviet puppet state, not on equal footing with the free FRG. This asymmetry lasted at least until 1968, with the report of that year still clearly using Germany and East Germany. Thus, the articles have to be at Germany at the 1952 Winter Olympics / Germany at the 1952 Summer Olympics, not West Germany at the 1952 Winter Olympics / West Germany at the 1952 Summer Olympics. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not clear on your comments - are you suggesting the rename of the two 1952 articles only, or of all "West Germany at the..." articles? Andrwsc 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
1952 for sure, as a starter. The EUA years and 1968 are doubtful, too, need to be better referenced, IOC database is flawed. Besides. the IOC code list says FRG was introduced in 1980. -- Matthead discuß!     O       20:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we need some consensus on this. I can see some valid reasons for changing FRG→GER. As a pseudo-precedent, we use NED exclusively, even though HOL was used in the past. Of course, this is an imperfect comparison since the IOC continues to use "FRG". That alone might sway consensus here, despite the IOC's occasional inaccuracies.
Note that it is not as simple as renaming a few articles — hundreds of instances of the {{flagIOC}} template (and its derivatives) with "FRG" use "West Germany" for target articles and display text. This is a very large undertaking!
Note also that the result would have "East Germany" and "Germany" for 1968-1988, instead of "East Germany" and "West Germany". I think the lack of symmetry in the former pair of NOC names would cause confusion etc.
Based on all this, my personal opinion is that "FRG" is still the best choice for those years, including 1952. Although GDR did not compete in 1952, I think FRG is a better match than GER to the nation that did compete. Andrwsc 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
FRG is the worst code choice for 1952, even EUA would be better. The IOC recognized the (Western) NOC as for all of Germany in 1951 (according to IOC principle one territory, one NOC) and required the GDR to cooperate in a united effort rather than promote their separate NOC. The GDR officials made no compromises and did not show up on 8 February 1952 to meet in Kopenhagen with the IOC and West German for mediation talks, claiming a delay due to winter weather, while staying in a hotel near the IOC hotel. Later they announced not to participate in the German team, calling its leader de:Karl Ritter von Halt, direct IOC-member since 1929 and co-organizer in 1936, a "war criminal". Thus, the 1952 teams represent Germany (not only West Germany), with East German officials boycotting it, preventing their athletes (and officials!) from qualifying for the team. I don't want to investigate other countries, but there might have been some sort of similar "regional" dissent, like in states with colonies, race issues, separatist movements. Besides, the flag with rings was used from 1960 to 1968, the current infoboxes are wrong in this regard, as EUA used a proper German flag in 1956, and both FRG=GER and GDR the O-rings flag in 1968. This requires additional templates - or less if covered with GER. The growing number of articles, Olympics, sports, politics etc. is also a reason why I want to have the matters simplified (not oversimplified). To me, everything which is not explicitly GDR-specific should be regarded and named as Germany, especially West Germany, which was just an episode of German history, not a separate state. The post-war story of Germany is complicated enough, no need to split it up even more - how about a "NOC for West Berlin", as proposed by the USSR? [8] An besides, why starting with Olympics in 1896? Two decades earlier, there was a united team of Germans and Greeks, see Germany at the 1876 Olympics. -- Matthead discuß!     O       01:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I have adjusted the 1968 flags for both FRG and GDR to use the "ring flag", so that is now fixed.
As for 1952, I can see your logic for using GER instead of FRG, but I'd like to see some more comments. I guess this is a slow time of year for this WikiProject (vacation time?) so please let's wait a bit. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. The fact that the IOC is a bit schizophrenic about what to use gives us latitude to go either way, I suppose. I had thought FRG was a more logical choice because the 1952 NOC and nation bore more resemblance to the 1968-1988 teams than to the 1936 nation or 1992 nation, but as I said, I understand your logic too.
As for 1956-1964, I have a counter-proposal. I think there may be some merit in simply using "Germany" instead of "United Team of Germany" for results tables and article names. Note that I am not advocating a change from EUA to GER - I think that the IOC chose a new code to represent this "dual NOC" team is significant, and we should preserve that. What I am proposing is that results tables would look like: Germany (EUA). (In other words, this would be the output of {{flagIOCteam|EUA|1964 Summer}} instead of Germany Germany (EUA).) I've always thought that using the full name of "United Team of Germany" looked a bit stilted in tables, and doesn't match the official reports of the time (which just used "Germany"). I still think we should have an article for United Team of Germany to explain the situation, and the introductory prose paragraph in those six articles (1956-1964, summer and winter each) ought to have a similar explanation. But there would be no need for United Team of Germany at the Summer Olympics and United Team of Germany at the Winter Olympics - the {{flagIOC}} templates would simply link to Germany at the Summer Olympics etc. These all-Germany summary articles are already including the EUA years, so that works.
I also think you have done the right thing by changing West Germany at the Summer Olympics into a redirect. But I also think that the individual Games articles for FRG from 1968 to 1988 still must remain at West Germany at the 1968 Summer Olympics etc. It's just the summary articles that should be merged/redirected.
To summarize then, I propose the following:
  • from 1896 to 1936, the per-Games articles are named "Germany at the .... Olympics"
  • the 1952 articles can be renamed to "Germany at the 1952 .... Olympics" — and the country code GER used instead of FRG — if we get some consenus. I would not oppose this.
  • the 1956-1964 articles can be renamed to "Germany at the .... Olympics" instead of "United Team of Germany at the .... Olympics", also if we have consensus. The country code EUA would still be used for these six Games.
  • the 1968-1988 articles will stay unchanged, at "West Germany..." (code FRG) and "East Germany..." (code GDR)
  • 1992-present also remain unchanged, of course
  • the "summary level" articles get collapsed considerably:
How does this look? I think the biggest improvement is in vastly simplifying the proliferation of top-level summary articles down to a minimum of 3. Andrwsc 02:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd even suggest to reduce the overview articles, namely to pack all that repeating history babble and East/West/United/Summer/Winter/SAA/NOCs into Germany at the Olympics - I'm getting more and more confused with all those different pages. German wikipedia has a pretty simple structure, for once, and no "Nation at 19xx" pages anyway as far as I see. The Summer/Winter overview pages can be used for outsourcing the numerous tables, with West and East results side by side there. Also, I'd like to see Germany and Germans always sorted as G and next to each other, e.g. in the participation overview, and not under E, G, W, U. How about a single Infobox Germany for all pages, with proper flag/name/code as option when used on a "at the 19xx" page, with links to all single pages included, even SAA? Just saved an incomplete proposal. -- Matthead discuß!     O       04:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I will always strongly disagree with combining GDR into a single "Germany at the Olympics". There must be a standalone East Germany at the Olympics article.
I'm not fond of your single Infobox version. There needs to be a specific infobox for each country code, but as you've seen, we have some flexibility in linking from one code to another where it makes sense. The current format is designed to show continuity in the main section, and links outside that continuity in the bottom section. That's why I think the GDR links need to come out of the main section of the GER infobox.
As for the per-nation per-Games pages, that has been a cornerstone of this WikiProject for a long time. Other wikis are certainly far behind en.wiki in terms of scope. Now that we have about 3000 of these articles, and have started to populate them, why would we go back? Andrwsc 04:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Is there any chance you can wait for some consensus discussion before moving the EUA articles? Andrwsc 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Medal counts

I just wanted some feedback on the format for the medal tables on the various "sport at the XXXX Summer olympics". For example, the Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics page had the country listed along with the IOC acronym. (USA, GBR, FRA etc.). Zé da Silva edited the page so that it removed those acronyms and I reverted it back. I just want to be sure about whether those acronmys should be inserted into those medal tables. Perakhantu 18:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You can look at similar tables for other Games and see that the nation's name is used. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
uh... I know that. I was wondering if it is official policy to include the IOC country acronyms as well inside those medal tables. Perakhantu 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we still don't have official policies, it's more consensual decisions. The acronyms are extensively used next to the nation's names in similar tables, so I guess this can be considered official. (We're in dire need to draft project guidelines :S) Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I think our common style is to definitely to include the country codes. User:Zé da Silva has recently started working hard on the 1900 Games articles, and has made several questionable changes to our common style. A talk page message might be in order. Andrwsc 18:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I apologise for having either removed the country codes or not included them on creating tables against the project 'policy'. Both versions (with and without the codes) are found on many articles and my view was that flagIOCteam would only be used when there had actually a team involved (say, in the medal summaries of team sports). I now understand this is not wanted. Zé da Silva 19:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No worries! It's sometimes hard to tell what our "preferred style" is, especially when working on the older Games first, as it is still very much a "work in progress" to get everything up to the same style. The best bet may be to look at the 2004 Games for guidance, as we tend to be working towards making those articles the "gold standard". As you can see in a discussion thread above, even that is only halfway done, with several sports still needing attention. Andrwsc 19:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Once again, Andrwsc beats me to the reply.  :P Perakhantu 19:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Belarus at the Olympics

I have a question about the categories at this article. Since this is an article about the entire Olympic history, should the categories for Summer and Winter games be here? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but the idea is that categories such as Category:Belarus at the Olympics would contain a set of articles, one per-Games (both winter and summer), plus one (maybe more) summary-level articles, such as Belarus at the Olympics. There should be no need whatsoever for two sub-categories (one each for Winter and Summer), even for nations like the USA, which has 44 of these articles (and a few others). Andrwsc 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I will make it clearer. At the bottom of Belarus at the Olympics, there is a category for nations at the summer/winter Olympics. Since this is the main article about the Olympic history, I am not sure if we need those sub cats. (I also notice a template of {{NationsinOlympics}} was removed. Can I put it back?). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Those categories are a bit of a mess right now, mostly because the set of articles in the "... at the Olympics" series is woefully disorganized and/or incomplete. That's another reason why that navigation box is somewhat useless - of the ~200 nations that ought to be in it, there are only 22 (mostly small African nations) in it. I think it would be better to hold off on that nav. box until we sort out the categories and articles. Andrwsc 21:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. Anything else I should do before I send this to Good Article Candidates? (I don't do much work on Olympic articles, but if yall try to make an article on the Olympic flag, come see me and I can help you with that). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, we've got a section for the flag at Olympic symbols#Flag, which at some point will hopefully be spun off into an article on its own. Any help you'd care to give there would be much appreciated! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 22:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, we have a need for an icon image that we can use for results pages for athletes who competed under the Olympic flag at specific Games. Right now, we are using Image:Olympic flag.svg at 22x20px resolution in usage such as {{flagIOCteam|EUN|1992 Summer}} to produce Unified Team Unified Team (EUN), and also in the infobox on articles like Australia at the 1980 Summer Olympics. I think we may be on questionable fair-use grounds here, so any help or advice you can provide on a permanent solution for a low resolution, yet recognizable image might be helpful. Andrwsc 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The Olympic flag article is started at User:Zscout370/Olympic flag, yall are welcome to jump in and edit it. As for the icon, I understand what you want, but I am guessing we could use the plain white flag. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Another general question; does all Olympic results have to be stuck with a citation mark? If so, would the NOC or the IOC be a good citation? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The best reference for each of these articles would be the official Olympic report for the particular Games. One of the things I'd like to do someday is create proper citations (using {{cite book}}) and place them in every "... at the xxxx Olympics" articles for a given year. You can find the PDF files for most of these results books at the LA84 Foundation website. As for style, I think these articles would look terrible if every individual result was cited. A single well-formed reference at the bottom of the page ought to do. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 21:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have the reports, that isn't the hard part. Just needing to cite it is what I am just wondering about. Thanks, I am hoping this passes GA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:MedalTable changes

Due to the comments I faced at the Belarus article mentioned above, I had to modify the template to add a space where event results can be cited. Comments please. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. That messes up the formatting of hundreds of other transclusions that don't use this extra column! See my changes to Belarus at the Olympics for a backwards-compatible solution. Andrwsc 22:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that works. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Great idea. I would suggest that they be converted into refs using the {{cite web}} template. As well, perhaps we could create a page on which there would be linked multiple references we use frequently, like what is used at Wikipedia:Geographic references. The references for census info, so that they do not have to be repeated, are listed there. On our page, we could use something like medal tables, main games pages, aafla reports, etc, that we use often. The correct source could be called up with a template, and it would be added to the refs section of the page just like every other ref added to the page. I would have to look into this though; it's just a suggestion. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I once had similar thoughts along those lines, but didn't do anything about it. I think it's a great idea, since the official report for each individual Games would need to be referenced on perhaps 300 articles (for recent Games), and it would be awfully useful for maintenance reasons to keep that under template control. Andrwsc 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't I think of that? What a time- and work-saving measure! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
For right now, I am using the IOC website as a citation for Olympic results, so once the templates are done, let me know so I can add them to the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(Pull left.) OK, so I've started a sort of citations conglomeration page at User:Jared/sandbox5. It seems like it'll be time consuming to make up, but should save a lot of time. Anyhow, what I think we should do is call different references by different successive parameters using switches. The first would be the games year, followed by the season. The third parameter would be the report series or whatever that you're specifically looking for, like aafla, medal, etc. If specifications need to be made further (what volume of the report, is it the general report, or the results report, etc.), more switches can be used to make these more specific calls. When the last call is reached for a specific ref, the {{cite web}} or other appropriate template is made as the returned text. I tried putting in the <ref> commands right into the template, but it turned out that all the refs on the page would show when you transclude the template, so I had to fix that. So take a look at it, and maybe I'll continue tomorrow. └Jared┘┌t┐  03:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is still a lot of work to be done with that page, but it's a start and I reckon its utility will grow proportionally with its construction ;) What will be needed is a list of the {{{3}}} strings, like aafla, medal, and others because it seems they'll be the most numerous and varied. Good job. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Medal counts by games

It was alluded to above that we reconsider what to do with the medal tables for each games (those "pages" on {{Olympic games medal count}}) because of the fact that it is almost impossible to keep an appropriate tally, find reliable sources, or ensure that no one number is changed or whatnot. Now, I know that Andrwsc has done considerable work to those pages so for now, I thought I would make a suggestion as to what to do with the other pages.

First should probably come the deletion of the three "total" pages: Summer Olympics medal count, Winter Olympics medal count, and Total Olympics medal count. These pages, as mentioned above and continuously throughout the months, contain grouped nations that should not probably be grouped, some that should have been, some nations that have split apart, etc, whereby now, any attempt at creating a total count would not be accurate to say the least. The highest we can possibly look at medal counts accurately is on a single-games-level.

As for the other pages (per-games tables), there technically isn't anything wrong with them, but technically, there isn't much to say, really; just the table is about it. I've been mulling this over, and what I sort of came up with is that since every nation that competed at the games is already listed on the main games page under the Participating NOCs/Nations section, why not just list any medals won there? Now the problems I have come up with with this "solution" include the fact that there are already numbers next to each nation to denote number of participants, how would we differentiate between gold/silver/bronze and should we, should we delete the old tables, ...? Now that I think of it, it may not be the best solution, but I will still think about it. Perhaps something like this:

It seems a little big and doesn't offer much room to put the number of participants (which is more important?), but it looks cool and also wouldn't show a ranking if placed in the NOC section. Just a thought. This adds the number of participants, but is humongus:

— └Jared┘┌t┐  13:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC) and 13:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind—this for example just looks ridiculous. So my suggestion now after that big long rant: keep the by-year pages and delete the three cumulative ones. └Jared┘┌t┐  22:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Lol, yes, it's better to leave the per-Games medal tables untouched, since this sort of ranking system is used by the OCOG's on their website, and people do like to see a rank of medalist nations to acknowledge how their nations performed relative to others, and for other reasons. But I agree with the total medal count pages, if they're not well-sourced (meaning OR). Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

2007 Pan American Games medal count

I know this may not be under our "jurisdiction" but it is a similar article and I'm having some difficulties with an editor there. While the Olympic Games are not the Pan American Games, I think we should have some similarity in the formatting of the articles, and the editor is blatantly disregarding any suggestions I make. I am asking you as an editor, not a member of this project, to make suggestions on that page that would be appropriate to make it look the most aesthetically pleasing. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. I found a loophole. But your suggestions would still be nice! └Jared┘┌t┐  18:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I've left my reply in the article's talk page ;) Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

New AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Winter Olympics diploma count (2nd nomination)

I figured I should give another go at deleting this article, especially seeing as how we shouldn't set the precedent for these to be here when the 2008 games roll along. └Jared┘┌t┐  13:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

Hey all,

There is going to be a big push to delete any unreferenced article ... and not necessarily through AfD, but through PROD and other means. We have a large amount of Olympic athlete articles with no references. My main goal over the next couple of weeks is going to be to get some of these referenced. The primary focus is on BLPs (biographies of living persons), but I wouldn't be surprised if that moved on. As you know, we have some editors who mass add articles and/or details to articles but don't follow process at all. I would hate to see their good work go to waste.

BTW, my watchlist was getting a bit out of control so I decided to completely purge it. Right now, the only two things on there are this talk page and the project page. ;) --Sue Anne 16:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a project page, talk page or so for this big push? Punkmorten 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
This is the only page you should need in your watchlist, right Sue?! Haha. Anyhow, my question is the same as the above. Where is there a list of Olympian articles that need to be expanded, if there is one? └Jared┘┌t┐  18:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
There really isn't a project page or anything, other than possibly BLP or BLP patrol. It's been discussed ad nauseum on the wikien-l mailing list, and that's where the biggest push is coming from to start nominating all of them with prods or for deletion. Personally, I'm going to start with the medalists and then go from there. I did two this morning ... how many to go? It seems that as long as the pages even have one reference, even if there are other unreferenced facts, that gets them off the radar. You might want to look through some of the pages and see if they are already tagged with the {{unreferenced}} tag. If they have, they would already be in this list here -- Category:All_articles_lacking_sources. --Sue Anne 19:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

May someone can stop the user David Krysakowski? He has destroyed a hugh number of Olympic pages... Doma-w 13:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything he's done in the past couple of days that you would consider vandalism that you can point me to? It looks like he's making good edits, although I have not gone through and fact checked what he's doing. He seemed to be a little too WP:Bold at the beginning, but a few warnings got him in line. --Sue Anne 18:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
He doesn't seem to communicate with other editors ever (even to respond to comments on his own talk page), never uses edit summaries, marks every single edit as minor, hits the "Save page" button far too often (instead of "Show preview" until done with a page), and some of his style choices are a bit questionable, but — his heart seems to be in the right place. The best approach is to assume good faith and provide feedback and guidance on his talk page. Even though he doesn't reply there, I have evidence that he at least reads the comments and will follow any guideline or policy suggestions you put there. As for specific edits he's done, which pages would you say have been "destroyed"? Andrwsc 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't use the term "destroyed", but just looking at one of the most recent events he's edited (Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's pole vault), he's definitely replaced accurate information with inaccuracies. Here's the before-and-after his (numerous edits long) change to the page: [9]. I double-checked the IOC database, there were bronzes awarded (why, I have no idea, but they did). Every page he's touched ought to be fact-checked. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
*sigh*. I hadn't seen that one. Revert away! Andrwsc 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think we still need to AGF on this one. It looks like he might be using www.databaseolympics.com as a source and not realizing that they aren't the most accurate of sources. Andrwsc, do you want to point out that databaseolympics can be inaccurate and he should use the ioc page as the "gold standard" on this one? --Sue Anne 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt that he believes he's doing good for the project. (I mean, after all, I created the initial version of that page with no bronze medalists before Doma-W fixed it--I was probably using Wudarski and didn't even think to see if bronze medals were awarded to the 4th place finishers). It's just his editing style that drives me bonkers, and the fact that he assumes whatever source he's using is The Truth without checking what's already on the page against anything else. Which is why I recommend fact-checking his edits, rather than automatically reverting or anything. Unfortunately, I rarely have the time to do that. (Also, my diplomacy skills are a bit lacking, as evidenced by the last user I tried to convince to play nice. So, if someone else could help guide David, that'd be great.) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being late. I used the term "destroyed" because he changed the standard style of many pages without adding new data.

What about his edits e.g. here:

Maybe David was confused because the event pages were created with "flagIOCmedalist", but the "List of Olympic medalists in xxx" pages were created with "flagIOCathlete"? Doma-w 22:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rio 2016 bid

Somebody can help? Felipe C.S ( talk ) 18:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll definitely take a look at that page. I cannot now, however, because human issues necessitate my being elsewhere, but soon! Jared (t)  18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey! I've made some changes. Hope you won't mind. I think a section about FINANCES should be helpful. Also, why not talk about Brazilian and Carioca people, the way the gave American people shelter during the 07 Pan American Games? They're really nice.

cat organisation

Does this category need to be sorted so that events are correctly categorised? Can a bot do it? Is there a todo list anyway? Just wondering, RHB - Talk 21:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick WP:AWB run should fix that. The event pages should not be in both the per-sport category and the parent category. Andrwsc
I think I've now organized this category. Parutakupiu 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I think that's how it should be - thanks for that!! Andrwsc 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
To answer the to-do list question, we do indeed have one at Template:Olympics To-do. It doesn't see near as much use as it should. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Medal count, rowing

In Rowing at the Summer Olympics Argentina is twice in the medal count. Could someone check..? Thanks! Hålslaget 22:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've checked it and Argentina has 1 gold, 1 silver and two bronze medals in rowing, so I just merged the divided medals and placed Argentina in accordance. Parutakupiu 23:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Field hockey or Hockey?

I was checking out my pictograms and found out a duplicate of Image:Olympic pictogram Hockey.png with the name Image:Olympic pictogram Field hockey.png. I didn't realize (or didn't remember) until know that it was the former file that was linked by all the related Field hockey pages and templates, while the latter was orphaned. But here lies my doubt: the main sport and per-Games articles are name "Field hockey at...", however the template page is named {{Olympic Games Hockey}} but bears the title "Field hockey". Along with this, the IOC calls it merely "Hockey".

Should we rename the per-Games template to {{Olympic Games Field hockey}} and replace the instances of Image:Olympic pictogram Hockey.png with Image:Olympic pictogram Field hockey.png, to maintain consistence with the articles? Or should we follow the IOC website and rename everything to just "Hockey" (very generic, imo)? Parutakupiu 23:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like calling it hockey. Maybe it's just because Americans never call it just "hockey," but it seems too ambiguous. The same goes for "Football," but I have no argument for that fight. Hockey to me and most other people would mean either street or ice hockey, with long slap-sticks and pucks, not in the field-hockey sense. So I would be all for making all pages into the "Field hockey" title. I know this goes against IOC standards, but perhaps we can break the rules a bit. The Wikipedia article, for the record, does use Field in the title, in order to disambiguate. Jared (t)  02:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Also note that the French name of the international organization governing the sport is "Fédération Internationale de Hockey sur Gazon," the "sur Gazon" meaning literally "on lawn." Jared (t)  02:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Quite right! I remember also that Andrwsc recently created the flag template sports variant for field hockey through {{fh}}, so one more reason to change to the more specific name. If anyone does not object, I'll take that task. Parutakupiu 03:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, most every en.wiki article on the sport uses "field hockey" in the article name, so there's no reason for the Olympic articles to be different (despite the IOC nomenclature). Andrwsc 03:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the IOC call ice hockey? —MC 15:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
"Ice Hockey" :P Parutakupiu 15:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 :-) Shouldn't they call field hockey by its specific name then? —MC 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, they should. The IOC is far from being infallible as we in this project have come to notice. Parutakupiu 16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't "pile on" to the IOC too much here! After all, the governing bodies are the International Hockey Federation (FIH) — no "field" — and the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF). But I still think the best approach is consistency with the rest of en.wiki on this issue. Andrwsc 16:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note that I updated the names of the US and Canada ice hockey teams, so, all in Category:National ice hockey teams and Category:Women's national ice hockey teams are of the same format. Neier 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

2004 report update

With my lessening patience for the report to come out, I re-emailed the AAFLA (LA84) library to see when they plan on actually putting it up (if you remember, I last told you that they'd have it up by the end of July, but...).

Anyway, so with a swift response (within a half-hour!) someone responded and said that the priority for the foundation at the moment is setting up a Google search interface, which they expect to take about 3 weeks. By the time that's done, though, the 2004 report should be accessible. So don't get your hopes up again, but we'll wait it out and see what happens.

The person who replied also asked if I needed anything specific from the report, but I replied no, because really, I need the whole report, and I wouldn't know where to begin! So if there is something you're stuck on, might I suggest you contact the person on the receiving end of library@la84foundation.org, who seems sort of excited that someone is actually awaiting one of their publications.

The librarian also said that they have received the hard copy reports from the 2006 Olympics, but "the digital edition is a long way off."

Anyhow, I just thought I'd let you know this updated information. Jared (t)  20:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, very helpful people in LA84 :) Well, they are an Olympic legacy organization after all, so they really should be delighted that someone is eagerly awaiting for the report. I can't blame you for not asking something about the 2004 report because I'd be clueless at the moment, too. We'll jsut have to wait a wee bit longer, then. Meanwhile, there's plenty of work that doesn't need the Athens report. Thanks for the update, Jared! Parutakupiu 23:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
"Meanwhile, there's plenty of work that doesn't need the Athens report." Yeah, like double-checking all the 1912 results, which I (finally) finished adding this evening. I'm betting there are some artifacts of template copy/pasting in there... probably erroneous links to 1908 and/or 2004 games in flagIOC templates and the like... name issues coming from using Wudarski... and so on...
Also, could one of you with some sense of aesthetics help out with the wrestling at the 1912 Summer Olympics detail pages? I couldn't find anything to use as a boilerplate for the format needed, so I made something up and (as usual when I do such things) it looks terrible. The format of the tournament is... weird... to say the least, though if you read the rules near the end of the official report enough times it makes sense. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:RankedMedalTable

Is it a good idea to add the sortable element there? The only problem should be the colspan/rowspans. --Howard the Duck 14:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say that the vast majority of transclusions of this template use "rowspan" on the first column for tie rankings, so we cannot just update the template without editing every transclusion first to ensure no breakage. Not a clean task, but maybe a worthwhile one. I've always hated the use of bold on the top number in each column, plus the need for the legal-esque disclaimer before many of those tables, and making them sortable would preclude the kind of edit-warring we've seen before. I was just going to suggest that we make it a template parameter (defaulting to standard "wikitable"), but I see that you've just made that change! Great minds think alike, I guess.  ;) Andrwsc 16:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There still some few more problems. See the template talk page for more info and suggestions on how to implement this. --Howard the Duck 01:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it. I just make the columns a bit bigger if the class variable is set. Now {{RankedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable}} works as expected. Cheers! Andrwsc 04:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Summer articles project section

Hi all! I don't know if some of you have noticed what I've been doing on this page, but now that I've somewhat finished the major changes to it, I'd thought I should present the results of my work. It is an old article writing guideline sort-of page that was a bit lost after the project's look was refreshed, so I commited myself to update it layout- and content-wise.

The biggest structural change I performed was converting the (heavy!) progress/coverage tables from templates into project sub-subpages (they were only transcluded once, so no need). The hardest task was cleaning up the NOC table, as you can guess — I applied flag templates, changed characters, and rearranged the NOCs by their attendance record (partially, because the tied NOCs are still not ordered alphabetically). I have a doubt with this table, though: NOCs which did not exist at a specific Games are shaded in red, but there are only some NOCs (the most historical ones) that have this shade applied. What about "minor" NOCS that also didn't exist at some time? Should I treat them equally? If so, we risk overshading the table (besides contributing to its size increase). Or should I just forget this shading option and use an hyphen for both situations (NOC did not attend, NOC did not exist)?

Thanks for any review and suggestion. Parutakupiu 18:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been following your edits and think you've been doing a fine job! It's sort of a start on standardizing our consensuses here, like we've been saying we were going to do for months now. Anyway, I think it's good as is. I'm not too sure about the "NOC didn't exist" thing. Perhaps a dash would do just fine anyway, but it is interesting info, so I don't know. Yeah, just forget about the minor ones. Only the big ones like Germany, USSR, etc, that actually morphed/split, etc, should be noted, if any at all. Jared (t)  00:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. One year to Beijing! Jared (t)  00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow. I better finish all this flag template work I've taken on for myself and get back to work on this WikiProject. We still have a lot to do before the "masses" start editing these articles! Andrwsc 04:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

2010 Summer YOG

Hey, Jared! New info about the bidding procedure and regulations for the first Summer Youth Olympic Games in 2010 — see news, deadlines and documentation (pdf). Parutakupiu 21:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. I'm actually not going to be around in the upcoming week because I'm going to visit colleges and then to Hampton Beach, and I'm really busy now, so I'll get to this eventually. If someone else wants to do this, fine, but I'd love to do it either way. Jared (t)  22:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, no prob. It was just a reminder if you didn't know about it yet. Have a nice week and enjoy the coast ;) Parutakupiu 23:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nordic skiing at the 1968 Winter Olympics

I recently stumbled upon this article. Some points made me wonder:

  1. Why is the article unsourced?
  2. Who were the winners (and runners-up) in the competitions?
  3. Why is biathlon not listed?
  4. Is there a reason why the winners are not listed? the full statistics can be extracted from here.

A quick check of the other "Nordic skiing at the XXXX Winter Olympics" shows that none of them has this info. Not being familiar with your project here, I thought I'd ask before doing something about it. Anyway, is there a preferred format for such things? Lupo 11:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can answer your third question: Biathlon is not a part of Nordic skiing. These two "events" are contested in separate World Championships, and at the 1968 Olympics biathlon should have, and has, a separate page. Punkmorten 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Nordic skiing, biathlon is part of it. Which agrees with my understanding of it. Lupo 13:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Olympic Nordic skiing is governed by the FIS, while biathlon is governed by the IBU. A link from Nordic skiing at the 1968 Winter Olympics to Biathlon at the 1968 Winter Olympics would probably be a good idea, but in the Olympic context they are two separate sports. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The articles should be sourced to the IOC medalist database (the one to which you linked above) and to the Official Report for that edition of the Games, at minimum. We have standardized templates for showing the medalists on pages like that one; I have no idea why they aren't on those. They should be! All of those pages should have a "medal summary" and "medal table" similar to that of, say, Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics (at least, I think that's the current format we're using...). If you'd like to help out, that would be great! -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That version of the article was my work, so perhaps I should explain! The "Nordic Skiing" events at the Winter Olympics consist of cross-country skiing, ski jumping, and nordic combined. In the early Winter Games (e.g. 1924), there was only 1-2 events for each of these disciplines, so the results pages had grouped them all together (e.g. look at this edit). In later Games, we had distinct results pages for each discipline (e.g. Cross-country skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics, Ski jumping at the 2006 Winter Olympics, and Nordic combined at the 2006 Winter Olympics). I wanted to make these consistent, so that each sport would have a series of similar articles across all Games (e.g. "Cross-country skiing at the yyyy Winter Olympics", "Ski jumping at the yyyy Winter Olympics", etc.) and this would also simplify the somewhat distracting "navigation box farm" at the bottom of those older "all Nordic" articles. That left the "Nordic skiing at the yyyy Winter Olympics" articles "orphaned" in a sense, so I turned them into disambiguation/navigation type pages that summarize all the Nordic events for each Games and lead the reader to the detailed discipline-specific articles, which have the medal winners etc. I don't know if this is more confusing that it is worth and perhaps they should be deleted? If kept, I agree that we ought to add a reference to the official report for each of those Games, and that is a top priority for this WikiProject anyway. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Torch Relay Additions

I made several minor additions to the Olympic Flame page. All I did was clean up the history section a bit and add a bit of trivia regarding the Olympic Flame. In addition, that same page could use some minor cleanup. I am just suggesting that the final torchbearer be merged with the correct relay.208.107.168.154 21:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pierre de Coubertin medal

I've posted a question at Talk:Pierre de Coubertin medal, because when doing basic research for an article on Raymond Gafner (former IOC member and supposedly winner of the Coubertin medal), I ran into some factual problems with the existing article on the Medal. I'm not an Olympics expert at all, so I would appreciate if people with more knowledge and/or better sources could take a look. Fram 12:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion of Brian Lewis

Somebody has speedily deleted a Brian Lewis page, who won a gold medal at the Sydney Olympics as a member of American 4x100 m relay team. Could somebody please restore it as I think it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion criteria. If it isn't possible, then I can start the article again, but first I would like to know is it desireable, because I don't want to see it again deleted. Thanks! Gh 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. The editor who tagged as speedy non-notable failed to inspect the article history to see that there were pre-vandalism versions that ought to be reverted to. Andrwsc 19:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Thanks in advance! :) Doma-w 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Not really. It seems it just passed by unnoticed. Go ahead and change it!
  • The team was officially known as Great Britain and Ireland until 1924 (this year an Irish team already participated as an independent nation, though). The default name link for the nation, used by flagIOC, is "Great Britain" but in the 1900 medal count page, this was changed to "Great Britain and Ireland" through the name= parameter; if this parameter wasn't used it would also show only "Great Britain". So it's a matter of renaming every instance of {{flagIOC|GBR|...}} (through the name= parameter) so that it displays Great Britain and Ireland for the articles covering the 1896 to 1920 Games.
  • I've already fixed that. Until someone creates an SVG version of the British Honduras colonial flag, the template {{Country flag IOC alias BIZ}} will point to Image:British honduras flag.gif (it was pointing to a non-existing Image:British Honduras flag.gif).
Hope this helps! Parutakupiu 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the expanded names for GBR are overkill (e.g. we say "United States" instead of "United States of America", "Iran" instead of "Islamic Republic of Iran", etc.) Although it is more precise to say "...and Ireland" or "...and Northern Ireland", I think "Great Britain" ought to be sufficient for medal tables, results tables, etc. The first sentence of introductory prose text on the respective "Great Britain and ... at the year Olympics" pages is the correct place to use the complete name. Andrwsc 23:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help! Do we now want to use the term Great Britain or Great Britain and Ireland? I would only prefer to use the same term in every article... Doma-w 09:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep "Great Britain" like Andrwsc said. Parutakupiu 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, so I have changed all to Great Britain. Doma-w 09:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Baketball template

Valerio LG has decided to add a new template to the basteball pages, and really thin that they are not necessary. Plus none of the other "single" sport pages (i.e. volleyball, water polo) have this type of template, and, if I'm not mistaken, we are trying to make these pages adhere to a similar format. I have sent him a messege via his/her discussion page, so hopefully this will be resolved. Perakhantu 17:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unannounced Olympiads

A user decided to merge all of the future Olympics pages into one sloppy mess of a page called "Unannounced Olympiads". I just figured this should be discussed. I personally don't like the idea of 5 different Olympics all being on one page. I'm going to revert him and then if we decide that it is a good solution, then the page can be recreated. -- Scorpion0422 04:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not like the "Unannounced Olympiads" either. We already know quite a bit about the 2016 Olympics. I may be swayed by discussion on the 2020, 2024 games, however. However, it seems cleaner to keep each one seperate.--Cbradshaw 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd have no problem with getting rid of the 2022, 2024 and 2028 pages, because they are way too far into the future and anything about potential bids just seems like speculation as a LOT can change between now and then. Perhaps they could be deleted/merged, but I think combining all of the pages into one isn't a very good solution. -- Scorpion0422 05:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to thank Scorpion for directing me to this page; I am unfamiliar with most of the "backstage areas" of Wikipedia, including projects, and concur that this is the appropriate venue for this to be discussed.
I had left a comment on one of the speculative articles about a month ago (I think it was the 2020 article) indicating that I felt that these should be merged. I reiterated the notion a couple of weeks ago, and—getting no response from anyone—decided to "be bold".
Now let me explain what I am thinking. First of all, I very much believe in the axiom that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The vast majority of the information in all of these articles on the unannounced articles, however, is speculation. Even the many references included are, by and large, citing speculation of other sources. I find it extremely amusing that somehow we find that an article on the 2032 articles violates WP:CRYSTAL but one on the 2028 games does not. A strong argument can perhaps be made for an article on the 2016 games, as countries already have selected their nominees in several cases, but beyond that . . . well, I just think it's silly.
I proposed (and created) an article on "Unannounced Olympiads" where all such speculation could be combined. In its final form (which I of course never got to), I planned to open the article with some disclamatory statements to the effect that the article would be highly speculative in nature. I think that the use of the {future sports} tag is simply pathetic, given that we use the exact same tag on the SuperBowl the night before it takes place. There is a whole heck of a lot of difference in the speculation regarding
a) a game that takes place later this week between known participants already gathered in a particular city, and that regarding
b) a series of events that take place later this century with many participants who have not yet even been born in cities that lay in countries that may or may not even exist when those games are taking place.
Using the same tag for both of these very different situations is just silly.
So again, I suggest that Olympics that are in the future be placed in a joint article (hopefully with a better title than that which I thought of). The only thing that we know about the 2020 Olympics is that they will probably take place. Somewhere.
Oh, one point of retort to Scorpion's comments. He says that my amalgam was a "sloppy mess". That, I would argue, was simply a reflection of what had already existed. Those other articles were already embarassingly sloppy. I changed nothing in them; their poor condition only became more apparent when they were combined. They need to be trimmed down considerably, whether they are combined or not. In fact, it was their very ungainliness that drew my attention to the need for change in the first place. Unschool 05:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, now that I see that pages like this also exist, I must really question the need for a separate page on the 2016 Olympics themselves. All that we really know about those Olympics is which cities are bidding on them. Everything else is mere speculation. How on earth can we justify having an article on an unannounced set of games and on the bidding process for those same games? It boggles the mind. If anyone really thinks that separate articles makes sense—a proposition with which I am not in agreement—then we should title them like this, since that's all the article is going to have to say, anyway. Unschool 05:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

These comments certainly bring up good points. My recommendation is to maintain the 2016 Games (and the 2018 Winter Games) because actual news items pertaining to these games are being released. Obviously, the chance for change is much greater in a multiple year period than in the SuperBowl example above, nevertheless, they are documented articles. My concern with eliminating the 2016 Games altogether, Unschool, is confusion on where to find the current information on the planned games of that particular Olympiad. I believe the "Bids" article is to document information on past bids, eg, I just moved all the info on non-bidding cities to that page from the "Main Page".

As for games 2020 and beyond, there are some valuable nuggets, (eg Paris wants to bid for the 2024 Games because it is the Anniversary of its last games), but as you state, many of the entries state things like "X is thinking of beginning to possibly bid for Games X"--quite tenuous. Why don't we edit the Template to state "Future Games or Bids" and group those tenous bits on one page as Unschool attempted? --Cbradshaw 16:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of a single combined article for all unannounced Games is a bad idea. I think it's the wrong solution to the problem. Basically, we want to make sure that we only mention cities that have reliable, verifiable sources to back up any stated plans. We need to weed out all the unsourced speculative material, which of course would be WP:OR. If we do a good job of that cleanup work, then the article set will take care of itself. For example, if there is a WP:RS for a Paris 2024 bid, then there is justification for a 2024 Summer Olympics article to hold that information. There probably isn't any reliable source for Games beyond 2028, so no articles would be created. The presence or absence of encyclopedic material will dictate what the "cut-off" for future articles will be — there is no need for us to have some kind of arbitrary rule. Let's work on cleaning up up the future Games articles first and see what we have. I think it's time to resolve all the "citation needed" tags — if we can't find anything, remove those cities outright from the article. Andrwsc 16:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andrwsc that the key to any solution of this is to make sure that everything included in articles on future Olympiads meets WP:RS. I don't really agree that it's a bad idea to have a combined article; my inclination would be to simply keep 2016 and 2018 (as Cbradshaw suggests), since there is already an active bidding preparation process going on today for those cities. And, if were to have my druthers, the 2020 article wouldn't be created until the site of the 2016 Olympics was announced.
Nonetheless, if WP:RS can be met, then some short articles (and they would be very, very short, I am sure) on future Olympics would be acceptable to me. I just found them to be speculative monstrosities, and unacceptable in their current state. Unschool 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, check out 2028 Summer Olympics. There are only two cities mentioned, so the article is short, but both of those are reliably sourced, so I have no problem keeping that article in its current state. But I see an awful lot of "citation needed" on 2020 Summer Olympics, so I could see that article deserving of some weight loss.... Andrwsc 22:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: I removed every city without a source from every future Olympics article, but there are still a lot of unsourced statements. I'd still like to try to cut out some of the unsourced commentary and analysis. -- Scorpion0422 21:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I may be chiming in a bit late here, but here's what I think. I, in my innocent early months on Wikipedia, did the same thing, creating an article merging all other future articles together. I got my inspiration from Post-2008 Atlantic hurricane seasons, which is, every season, pushed back another year. But now that I think of it, the Olympics cannot be all merged together because, frankly, it just wouldn't make any sense. There are good sources out there for future games, but yes, they are limited. I've always wondered what we should make of our cutoff point, but I think like Andrwsc said, there would be no reason to make an arbitrary one.
To sum it up, I just think we need to use common sense in creating (or deleting, perhaps) some of these pages. No matter how reliable a source is, a lot can change in 20 years, and I'm really not sure we should advertise those unreliable possibilities. That said, I think as long as we have weeded out the problems for the most part, we should be in pretty good shape. Jared (t)  12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Fortunately, because of WP:AGF, I can avoid the logical conclusion that I am being insulted by an editor (whose mainspace edits exceed my own by less than 100) when he refers to his "innocent early months on Wikipedia", and then chimes in with the kicker, "I just think we need to use common sense in creating (or deleting, perhaps) some of these pages.". You know, Jared, perhaps if you do a little independent reading, you will realize that someone else might not lack "common sense", but might just have a differing viewpoint. I personally think it's perfectly sensible to combine these articles, but I nonetheless have (I think) graciously accepted the fact that others felt differently, without resorting to attacking them as newbies or as lacking common sense. But as I was saying, assuming good faith, I must presume your statements were not intended as insults; rather, they merely indicated your thoughtlessness. I eagerly await your advance to the next stage. Unschool 03:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems that you read a little too closely what I wrote above. I actually sort of laughed when I read your comment and not until I went back to look at my own comment did I see how it may have been construed as a direct attack on you personally! I again apologize if that is how you understood what I said. Allow me to rephrase my comments.
It is a wonderful idea to merge these articles together, one that I tried to implement a while ago. (The "innocent early months" thing was merely a timestamp from my own recollection.) Unfortunately, over time I came to realize that there is no catch-all solution to combining the articles, which is where I stand now.
The "common sense" one must utilize is when he or she creates new Year Season Olympics pages. Again, you may have misunderstood my wording, but what I was getting as here was that we shouldn't make 2024 or 2028 Summer Olympics pages just due to the sheer fact that there is not possibly any information out there that would be worth publishing on the speculative nature of these distant games. So again, I do accept your differing viewpoint, and my previous comment, like this one, just serve to show how I feel, and not, like you suggested, insult or attack your views. Jared (t)  19:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I accept your explanation of your intent and hope that you will accept my apologies for having clearly failed—despite my words to the contrary—to have followed the precepts of WP:AGF. Cheers, and adieu. Unschool 02:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, no problem. I probably would have thought the same thing if I read the comments I made! Sorry, again. Jared (t)  01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Gymnastics category merge nomination

Category:Artistic gymnastics at the Olympics & Category:Rhythmic gymnastics at the Olympics & Category:Trampoline gymnastics at the Olympics have nominated for merging into Category:Gymnastics at the Olympics. 132.205.44.5 21:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The nomination is here. The current system is broken, as articles are in both Category:Gymnastics at the Olympics, and the rhythmic/artistic/trampoline subcats. My rationale for deletion is to keep the categories consistent with the broad names, such as are used in {{EventsAt2004SummerOlympics}} and other templates. Another solution that does not involve deletion/merging would be to rewrite all of the Gymnastics at the xxxx Summer Olympics articles, and devote one article to each of the three. In 2008, this has been done; although, a mergeto tag has already been put on one of them, so I'm not alone in my thinking that keeping them together is a good thing. If we did the split, then I think we also have to do the same for athletes (running, jumping, pole vaulting, hammer, etc); for figure skaters (ice dancing); for fencing (epee, foil); for alpine skiers (slalom, downhill) and on and on. Neier 22:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I haven't seen the 2008 articles, but we already have strong consensus for keeping multi-discipline sports under a single top-level article. I don't think your specific comparisons apply here, though, as those are all events. A better comparison would be to canoeing/kayaking, where we keep the flatwater and slalom disciplines together in the top-level article (such as Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics), but with separate medal summary tables. Another example is Cycling at the 2004 Summer Olympics, where road, track, and mountain are all shown on the main page. Of course, every event has its own page too, so that's where the per-discipline details can be covered. Andrwsc 22:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
So in response to the comment, I would tend to agree that a merge of these categories would be best. The only sport that should really be split is aquatics, and all pages, subpages, and categories currently reflect this (I think). Jared (t)  12:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

broadcasted

What is the problem with the word broadcasted?? And why it can be used only for six TV stations (including Ireland)? Do we have an expert who can repair the 2006 Winter Olympics page? Thanks in advance! Doma-w 22:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

When do we create the individual nation pages for the 2008 Olympics?

The title says it all. Yes, I know the olympics are still a year away, but I was recently trying to find a nice, easy to read list of who has qualified for Team Canada so far with little luck. With the the qualification for several events already underway, many teams are starting to take shape, so perhaps its time to create the team pages. Is there some kind of rule for this? -- Scorpion0422 14:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There are three that have already been created, but they are rather meagre, with only a handful of already-qualified athletes listed. See Category:Nations at the 2008 Summer Olympics. I think that if there is something to say for a particular nation, then that article could be created now, but I would hold off on mass-creation of ~208 stubs. The "right time" might be when we start to get more complete lists of athletes for each nation. Andrwsc 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was considering creating one for Canada, because so far athletes have qualified in more than a dozen events, and there are sources, so a page could easily be created. I was just wondering if we should wait though. -- Scorpion0422 17:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead and create a page for Canada (here) because there have been dozens who have qualified, and I'm only adding those that I can find sources for. -- Scorpion0422 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi all! I've recently (few weeks?) started to do a similar page on Portuguese competitors already qualified for Beijing 2008, but it's still on a userpage of mine, because I thought it wasn't the time to create country pages for these Games. But they'll have to be created anyway, so... Maybe, I'll move it to the mainspace soon. Parutakupiu 23:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like momentum. I found a site which lists all the spots Japan has qualified for so far, so, I'll update it as I work through each sport. Japan at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Neier 07:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Youth Olympic Pages and Template

Hi, How far ahead (if at all) should we go with making pages for the Youth Olympic Games? Also, would it be alright to edit the series (perhaps the first two announced games for now) to the Olympics template? Or would people rather see a seperate template for those games? Also, should the Youth cities be included on the string of "Main" Olympics along the bottom? I don't prefer that, but I do like adding the Youth Games to the template.-- Cbradshaw 05:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

As a fully IOC-sanctioned event, I think these Games should be added to the general Olympics navigational template. However, we have to think better on how to incorporate them in the host cities row, because from now on there will be two Olympics per year. Perhaps a separate row below the senior Olympics host cities? Parutakupiu 22:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
While I find it acceptable to have just one link referring to the main page of the Youth Olympics, I do not want to see links referring to each edition of the youth games inside the main Olympic template. That would be better suited for a seperate template. The modern Olympics have been around for over 100 years and has been and most likely will always be the most popular "version" of the Olympics. When someone say "The Olympics", most people know what they are referring to, and 9 times out of 10 it isn't going be the youth olympics. Also, a short paragraph about the Youth Olympics would suffice inside the main Olympic Games page. Perakhantu 21:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a row for the Youth Olympics to the current template. Right now it is very small. I have never made a template before, so Perakhantu, I can't currently fulfill your wishes! I think for the time being, keep the cities off the template anyway, maybe when a city is chosen for the 2010 YOG, then we can create a separate template. Now I have to go make actual pages for the 2010 and 2012 YO games! :) --Cbradshaw 23:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
These types of changes have a knack for becoming very permanent. I certainly hope to see a seperate youth games template in the VERY NEAR future. Perakhantu 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Gymnasts category delete nomination

Category:Olympic artistic gymnasts & Category:Olympic rhythmic gymnasts & Category:Olympic trampoline gymnasts have nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 22:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Unified Team sportspeople

I've just noticed that there exists Category:Unified Team sportspeople (plus a few subcategories), created a few years ago. Seems like a duplication of Category:Olympic competitors for the Unified Team, so we should probably just delete the former. Chanheigeorge 09:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Categories for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_5#Category:Unified_Team_sportspeople_and_its_subcategories. Chanheigeorge 18:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong flag for Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1998

Bosnia's current flag (the blue and yellow one with the stars) was adopted a few days prior to the start of the 1998 Olympics. It should be shown instead of the old lilly flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.31.10.49 (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Andrwsc 19:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Cruft battle beginning to emerge on Olympic athletes

Heads up. There are some editors who are starting to use deletion processes to nominate articles either for AfD of CSD. I have had two articles that have gone through that so far, Bruce Haslingden (Australia cross country skiing - kept) and James Crall (United States bobsleigh - withdrawn). A third article, Thomas M. Jacobs (United States - nordic skiing - under review right now, but favoring toward keep). The main issue is notability even though WP:BIO has notability guidelines on athletes, even the Olympics (Crall won a bronze medal in the two-man event at the 1967 FIBT World Championships in Alpe d'Huez, France and was still CSDed before an administrator dropped the CSD.).

This issue on cruft may be the biggest threat not just to our project, but to a lot of other projects as well. Chris 00:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TFDs

Hi! The following TFDs lack attention: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 14#Template:2004 Summer Olympics medal count, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 October 14#Template:2006 Winter Olympics medal count. Punkmorten 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Martin Sheridan- I lurk a bit on this list. You guys use some of my sources, as I've written 23 books on the Olympics and am Past-President of the International Society of Olympic Historians (ISOH). The books you quote sometimes are The Golden Book of the Olympic Games (with Erich Kamper) and my series on the 1896-1920 Olympics. Martin Sheridan is my favorite Olympic athlete (one of my dogs is named after him!) and I really am a neophyte on Wikipedia in terms of getting into the discussion. I want to edit his article but not certain how to do that. There could be a lot added to his bio, but also, there is a major error. Sheridan did not carry the US flag at the 1908 Olympic opening ceremony. That was Ralph Rose. (It was also not Johnny Garrels, as sometimes seen - Garrels was the standard bearer.) Sheridan did make the quote, however, "This flag dips to no earthly king!" when asked about Rose not dipping the US flag to the British King at the Opening ceremony. This is detailed in my book on 1908, and I've got photos of Rose carrying the flag during the opening ceremony. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billbambam (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bill! Thanks for the info, and all your great research on the Olympics. We appreciate the sources! I went amended the Martin Sheridan article per your information; you might want to doublecheck for accuracy. I encourage you to get involved and add or edit articles yourself: it's as easy as pushing the "Edit Article" tab at the top of the page. (You'll catch on in time) It would be wonderful to have such an expert contributing to these pages--we're all in this together. Cheers! --Cbradshaw 19:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Olympics on the Main Page

I have raised the idea of putting a box on the Main Page for the duration of the 2008 Summer Olympics over at the Village Pump. I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject for their opinion on this: should we do this or not, and if so, how? Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page. I've put a draft version of what I had in mind at User:Aecis/Olympic sandbox. AecisBrievenbus 18:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

List of modern Olympic Games?

I was wondering if anyone would object to me taking the "List of modern Summer Olympic Games" from the Summer Olympic Games page and the "List of Winter Olympic Games" from the Winter Olympic Games and combining them to make one big master "List of modern Olympic Games" page? It seems like that kind of page SHOULD exist. My intention would be to fully source the page and eventually take a stab at an FLC. Any opposition out there? I would build the page in a sandbox, and then get some opinions before creating the page. -- Scorpion0422 04:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2008 Olympics Portal

About a week ago, I proposed putting a box about the 2008 Summer Olympics on the Main Page for the duration of the Games (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Olympics on the Main Page and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Olympics on the Main Page). After discussions at the Village Pump, I have withdrawn the suggestion. However, I have made a new proposal for our coverage of the 2008 Summer Olympics: to create a Portal about the 2008 Summer Olympics, and to put a link to that Portal on the Main Page. I would like to ask the members of this WikiProject to shed their lights on this proposal, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Portal proposal. AecisBrievenbus 14:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate re-opened for Olympic athlete notability

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Barker (athlete) for a new discussion on whether or not every Olympic athlete satisfies notability requirements for individual articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.