Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 3

message: First are the list of nations whose common-use name should uncontroversially be used for the Olympic articles.  In each case, the main Wikipedia article uses the common-use name, and I see no compelling reason for the Olympic article to be different.  Also, in many of these cases, the current IOC designation has not always been used for all Games.  (For example, "Iran" was just "Iran" from 1948-1988.  I feel it is important to use "Iran at the xxxx Olympics" for all years.  See :Category:Iran at the Olympics for the full set.)
Wikipedia Olympic usage	official IOC designation        	main Wikipedia article
                       	Brunei Darussalam               	Brunei
                       	Hong Kong, China                	Hong Kong
                       	Islamic Republic of Iran        	Iran
                       	Lao People's Democratic Republic	Laos
                       	Libyan Arab Jamahiriya          	Libya
                       	Republic of Moldova             	Moldova
                       	Russian Federation              	Russia
                       	Syrian Arab Republic            	Syria
                       	United Republic of Tanzania     	Tanzania
                       	United States of America        	United States
There is one more nation that ought to be in this category. but currently is not:
Wikipedia Olympic usage	official IOC designation      	main Wikipedia article
                       	Federated States of Micronesia	Federated States of Micronesia
I would prefer to shorten this to "Micronesia" if we have consensus.  I see that single-word name used on part of the IOC website too.  I typically use the name= parameter of the  template to render this as , which retains the long name for the article.  I also put this nation under "M" in alphabetic-order list of nations.  Alternately, using "FS Micronesia" for  would be acceptable (as per category 4 names below).
;Updated:  now returns simply "Micronesia", and all other related changes have been made.  Andrwsc 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category 1

message: The next category are nations where I felt the common-use name was the most appropriate choice, because it was widely known and/or the official designation was awkward to use.
Wikipedia Olympic usage	official IOC designation   	main Wikipedia article
                       	People's Republic of China 	People's Republic of China
                       	German Democratic Republic 	German Democratic Republic
                       	Federal Republic of Germany	West Germany
                       	Yemen Arab Republic        	Yemen Arab Republic
                       	Yemen Democratic Republic  	People's Democratic Republic of Yemen
I would not object to using "PR China" for CHN (and making it a category 4 name, as per next section) if there was a big objection to the current Olympic usage.  I would object to using any other longer name.
As for the two Germanys and two Yemens, I would oppose any change to them.  I can't see any other solution that would work as well as the current one.
You might ask about the two Koreas - they are listed in category 2 and 4 for different reasons.  I would not object to moving them both here (as "South Korea" and "North Korea" instead of "Korea" and "DPR Korea"), if there was strong support for that.
;Updated :Koreas have been updated to as described.  Andrwsc 01:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category 3

message: Wikipedia Olympic usage	official IOC designation	main Wikipedia article	Comments
                       	Timor-Leste             	East Timor            	Perhaps the main Wikipedia article ought to use the nation's preferred name instead of the English translation (see Côte d'Ivoire for an example of that).
                       	U.S.S.R.                	Soviet Union          	I tried to get a discussion going about what to use, but nobody joined.  I settled on "USSR" as per IOC usage.  I would not object to a change to "Soviet Union" if we had a big discussion on it.
                       	Bahamas                 	The Bahamas           	could change to "The Bahamas" if desired.  See "The Gambia" below.
                       	Gambia                  	The Gambia            	We should be consistent with respect to GAM and BAH about whether "The" should be in the title or not.
;Update:I have changed  to "Gambia", and made all other related changes.  Andrwsc 23:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: As you can see, I have given this a LOT of thought.  I believe the current situation has good arguments to support each of the decisions we took.  There are a handful of potential changes, and they are noted in my comments above.  Hopefully I can spur some more discussion on this!  Andrwsc 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: Pretty much, I agree with almost all that you said. You hit the key points of the current designations and your views basically aligned with mine. 
My theory is that the IOC is usually the best source. If there is ever confusion about something, the IOC should be the source to clear that up. In some cases, the IOC will use NOC names that are true to the name of the country, but are obnoxiously long or unnecessary; usually the shortened version (used by most WP pages now) is best at carrying across the point that this is the NOC we're talking about. So in sum, the IOC's names should be followed closely, and only should be deviated from if a shortened name would carry across the same effect.
I'll go over everything that you brought up again, but with my takes:
;Category 1
:* As far as this category, everything you said is good. Short and sweet and too the point is usually best, as is in this case.
:* That said, I would make FS Micronesia just simply Micronesia. Again, it just makes sense.
; Category 2
:* PLE should be made just Palestine. The IOC designates that, so why should we add extra?
:* See my thoughts about the Koreas below.
:* Everything else is fine.
; Category 3
:* Everything is good; I'd object to PR China because again it is unnecessary.
; Category 4
:* As for DR Congo, I don't think anything else could be done to shorten this (because of the Rep. of Congo), except for what is already in place, so I'm fine with this.
:* As for Korea, see below.
:* As for FYR Macedonia, I say go with Macedonia. The actual political name of the nation is Republic of Macedonia, and we've been shortening all the other ones, so I don't see why we shouldn't shorten this one.
; Miscellaneous
:* Something bugs me about having an abbreviation in the name. Using USSR would be like saying USA at the ... ... it just doesn't seem right. I'd support having Soviet Union.
:* For Bahamas and Gambia, get rid of the "The." it is, to me, unnecessary in the Olympics context, plus, the IOC doesn't use "The."
; Taiwan
:* If splitting them is the only option, I guess that's fine. It just seems like the only reason a nation should have two separate pages (3 in the case of Germany) is if the nation split itself, but I see that for political reasons, this had to be done. There's just no ____ at the Summer Olympics page where both designations are shown as related, which may present a problem when this is made. How should it be designated?
; Korea (North and South)
:* Here's my theory: going for simple (like I've stressed above), North Korea and South Korea seem like the best options. But going with IOC designations, it is a similar case to Congo and DR Congo. I would say that North Korea and South Korea are a pair, and if one is objected, both are. Therefore, I would say keep it as the IOC designations of Korea for South Korea, and use DPR Korea for North Korea. It seems most logical.
That's pretty much it. Feel free to branch off of my views for your discussion. Don't feel like you have to write as much as we did, either, because we were just trying to get our views out there. You just have to say what and to what extent you support something. → JARED (t)  21:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with all said by Jared as this is exactly how I feel about these naming conventions. When it comes to those he wasn't sure about, this is my opinion. I would go for Chinese Taipei since the IOC started to use that name and Republic of China before that time. For the Korea's I prefer North Korea and South Korea, as this makes more sense in my opinion. SportsAddicted | discuss 23:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jared's take

message: I have started to make some of these changes, as it appears we have some consensus.  One question - how should the pair of Koreas, Germanys, Yemens, etc. be sorted in the list of participating nations and in the navigation boxes?  Should I put North Korea and South Korea together under "K", or under "N" and "S" respectively?  The Germanys are currently under "E" and "W", but I have to edit all those templates anyway and if we want to change the sort order, I can make all the changes together. Andrwsc 21:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it depends how we're going to do Korea. I guess it really doesn't matter to me. North Korea and South Korea are fine, as long as its both of them. Plus it matches the germanies and yemens. I think they should be placed according to the main name, like put them both in the K's. It makes the most sense, becuase we're just using North and South as helpful locators. → JARED (t)  12:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm about half-way finished moving the Korean articles to "North Korea at the..." and "South Korea at the...".  Still some cleanup left for today.  Right now they're sorted under K (because I put "DPR Korea" after "Korea" when the previous names were used) so I'll leave them that way.  But, right now the Germanys are under "E" and "W", so I shall move them under "G" for consistency.  Also, I think that means "United Team of Germany" (1956-1964) ought to go under "G" as well, not "U" as is the case now.  Andrwsc 17:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sort order?

message: Now that we have graphics for the Summer Olympic sports, i had this idea to create a table, in the "Country at the XXXX Season Olympics" pages, where all the competitors would be sorted by their sport. You can see what i'm talking here. The images and numbers are called through this template (very basic), but the table has to be set by the editor, considering the number of sports and consequently the number of rows and columns — this issue would be discussed. I tried to code the table itself, but the wiki scripting language just doesn't suffice. What do you think? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 21:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competitors by sport table 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: I've been a bit absent from here, but i've been working on a new thing which i think might interest you. I've made a two-version template (actually two very similar templates) which can display all the Olympic medalists of a certain country, per medal type. Here is where you might say "ALL?! You're crazy! Do you know how many medals the United States have?!", lol. Yes... in the case of "big" countries like the US, Soviet Union, China, etc., it might be an herculean task, but there are loads of countries who don't have such records and listing their medalists would be simple. To find out more about this take a look - HERE - and then post your comments here! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 03:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks good; I'm just not sure of your intentions for the template(s). I think you would want to put them on Nation at the Olympics, Nation at the XXXX season Olympics,...and possibly at each medalist's page (but that may be overboard). Overall, I think I like first template better because it looks neater. The second one might be nicer, yes, for larger nations, but would each medalist be listed for as many times as they won? I'm also not sure of the ease of using the template for huge nations, like the US. Maybe an example... Good work though so far! → JARED (t)  21:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they could fit at the "Nation at the Season Olympics" because the template header will only show either "Summer" or "Winter". Moreover, for countries with "tons" of medals it'll be heavy to join all Olympic medalists from both seasons. I also thought putting it on the medalists' pages but i'm not so sure now because there are A LOT of medalists without personal articles, especially from weak-performing countries. I also like the first template too (tidier) and it only implies a unique entry for an athlete, even if he won more than one medal of a kind. In the second template, the inclusion of the years would oblige repeting athletes who won the same medal in different Olympics. Yet, i quite like the "year parameter" - even with these cons - but i'm ok with your preferences. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medalists dynamic box 

message: Olympic Games has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Sandy (Talk) 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Olympic Games FAR

message: Hello, people. After creating another Olympics-related article (one redlink less!) I noticed that the project's template  had a glitch on the category inclusion - it included the banner category on the template page only (correct) but it also "noincluded" the wikiproject category for the individual articles where it would be transcluded (wrong). I suppose it was meant to be put the   tags so that this latter category would appear on the articles pages themselves, as obvious. That's what I did. I also created a new subcategory - :Category:WikiProject Sports Olympics articles where all the ones who have the project template would be directed. I'm still trying to devise something more out of this matter, though. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconfigured categories and WP template 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: Not to bring another issue into the mix, but that's exactly what I'm going to do (☺)! I have been handling the FARC of Olympic Games for a few weeks now, but it seems that the page hasn't gotten far. I've edited some sections and added a lot of sources, but many sections need re-writes. I began to outline some stuff that needs fixing on the talk page. Anyway, if anyone has any spare time, could you look at that article and maybe choose a section to fix up. I'd hate to lose it, but I have other responsibilities that hinder me from doing it by myself. → JARED (t)  20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know I'm currently working on the Diving at the Summer Olympics per-year events, but free time is what I have most now, and if it's a subject of the utmost importance I'll be glad to help, in any way possible. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 21:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the utmost importance, but I think it is a notable article-- one that the whole framework of this Wikiproject is built upon. But that should put no pressure on you; do as you wish. → JARED (t)  21:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Olympic Games]] 

message: I see that Jared has added a parameter to  to render the number of competitors for each nation in parenthesis after the name, as seen on 2006 Winter Olympics.  This is really useful, and I encourage anybody who wants to take up the challenge to help complete these numbers for all past Games, and to also add the numbers to the appropriate "Nation at the year Olympics" page (by using the "competitors=" parameter to the infobox, and "sports=" if possible).  I realize this is about 3000 edits, but it is very useful information and would greatly help for the summary "Nation at the Olympics" articles to have this data too.  Andrwsc 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of participants

message: One thing I noticed - and I believe should be standardized soon - is the way a sport or event was present or absent at a Season Olympics. In the Olympic sports tables, the sports included in the Olympic programme of the different Games are indicated with a bolded X (e.g. X); if it's absent, nothing is written on the cell. However, on some "Sport at the Season Olympics" articles, the event tables display either bolded enlarged dots (e.g. •) or simple X's, even on disciplines of the same sport (Swimming at the Summer Olympics and Synchronized swimming at the Summer Olympics), while others don't even have one event table yet (Water polo at the Summer Olympics). What type of mark should we use? X or •?
Deriving from this, I've turned the dots on the Diving at the Summer Olympics event table as links to the various diving events along Olympic history. Do you think I did well? If yes, could it be expanded to all other tables? 
To finalize, as per Andrwsc suggestion: «(...) I think the "Participating nations" sections on the summary "Sport at the Olympics" pages would be more informative if the actual number of athletes for each nation were listed in those tables, rather than just an "X" for participated or blank/dash for not (...)» I've done that with the diving nations table (at least, since Andrwsc warned me). Then, I conclude we should do the same with the rest, even though some editors are still putting X's or dots.
Comments are appreciated. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the bullet.  The upper case X is not as aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion.  The one thing I'm not completely sold on is the need to use it as a direct wikilink to the specific event page.  Whatever character is used there, it's a somewhat hidden navigation method that may be useful for us keen WikiProject editors, but not natural or obvious to our audience of casual readers.  If you really want to keep it, I won't delete it!  But it certainly adds to the page size, and adds to the difficulty of maintaining the page, especially if you can imagine what the completed table at Athletics at the Summer Olympics will end up as.  I think the cost outweighs the benefit. Andrwsc 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even I wasn't really appealed by it, in aesthetical terms, but I didn't want to undo it before taking your opinions. But your arguments - which I incredibly didn't consider before now (!) - seem completely justified and I won't lose anymore time and work with it on future edits. Thanks, Andrwsc! You're a true help ;) Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullets, certainly.  As for the event links, they are useful in editing (such as when I want to open all instances of men's shot put events, for instance) but not so helpful for casual readers.  As for nations, number of competitors is nice, so if you have it handy use it; if not, put a bullet and someone can come along later with numbers. -- Jonel | Speak 20:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An idea I had that might help in your example would be to put all the event pages for the same event across multiple Games into a new category.  For example, Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's shot put would be in both :Category:Athletics events at the 2004 Summer Olympics and :Category:Shot put at the Olympics (or whatever).  That would help both in editing (e.g. use AWB on that category) and for reader browsing ("hey, I'm interested to see how the shot put changed over the years").  Andrwsc 21:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, the existing Diving pages already had such a :Category:Diving at the Olympics; while I created the inexistant event pages of a Year Summer Olympics, I included them on this category. It's a matter of creating equal categories for those sports/disciplines which don't have it yet. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what I was suggesting was in addition to that.  Right now, we have (or should have), a category for "Sport at the Olympics", which contains the top-level summary page plus all the top-level per-Games pages.  It also has subcategories of "Sport events at the year Olympics", each of which is populated by the per-event pages for those Games.  Therefore, we have a tree-like hierarchy.  What I'm proposing is to add a "perpendicular slice" across all Games for the same event.  In your case, you would have all the men's springboard event pages from all Games in another category (say, :Category:Diving at the Olympics - men's springboard).  In other words, each per-event results page would be in two categories - one with all the other events in the same sport in the same Games, and the other with all the same event in other Games.  I hope this is clearer!  I don't know if it's actually useful or not, but it seemed like something potentially helpful, once we have a lot of the per-event pages complete.  Andrwsc 22:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Yes, I think that's a valuable addition to the Olympics category network. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 22:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Jeese, you guys are moving fast-paced! I have to catch up. OK, so yes, bullets. Now, to tackle some of the other stuff above.... → JARED (t)  21:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  I agree that it should be the bullet and not the big x. --Sue Anne 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "'''X'''" or "'''<big>•</big>'''"? 

message: I have nominated the article 2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization for deletion. You are invited to comment, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics medals count by International Organization (second nomination). AecisBravado 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFD notification 

message: About a week ago, Jared added a third parameter to  to show a number in parenthesis after the nation name.  I had an idea to use that to add a "Participating nations" section to Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics, which I have just finished splitting into per-event articles.  I rather like the result!  It is informative, with numbers of athletes provided for 79 nations, without being an excessively large table or list.  Perhaps we can adopt that as a standard section on the per-sport per-Games pages when this data is available.  I will be adding it to some of the other 2004 pages in the next few days too.  Andrwsc 20:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it looks nice and especially informative. That data can be used also to replace the numerous X's at the main "Sport at the Season Olympics" pages' nations table (and vice-versa). Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. I just switched it over to four columns so it filled up space better. → JARED (t)  01:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Participating nations

message: Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?.  (SEWilco 06:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at MoS on flag icons 

message: As per a request by Parutakupiu, I am trying to delete :Bobsleigh at the 1960 Winter Olympics.  An admin disagreed with my prod request, so now it's up for AFD.  Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobsleigh at the 1960 Winter Olympics if you want to comment.  Andrwsc 17:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another AFD

message: As it is stated on the lead of Rowing at the Summer Olympics, despite scheduled for competition, no rowing events were actually contested at the 1896 Summer Olympics, because of bad weather. The  navbox also clears this by signaling 1896 as a noncompeting year for rowing. Still, there is an article for it - Rowing at the 1896 Summer Olympics. It think we should propose it for deletion like we did with Bobsleigh at the 1960 Winter Olympics. The article is very short (won't expand anymore) only stating the reason for the absence of competition and also which events were scheduled. Since the main sport page already does both things in the lead section and on the event table (if deleted, this year would become a linkless "gray" number but the events could stay), I think we should go for deletion. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 20:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say go for it.  -- Jonel | Speak 21:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consider it deleted :) Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible AFD? 

message: Hello all. I requested a peer review for the article Olympic Committee of Portugal created entirely by me and I would be glad if anyone here could contribute. Thanks! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 05:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I went a bit further and nominated it for GA, while the peer review is still on, but since the GAC list is huge (though reaching GA is simpler) I'd like people who have interest on the subject and wouldn't mind to evaluate the article to post more comments. I've been expanding the content and copyediting so there's some new little things. Thanks! Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Olympic Committee of Portugal/archive1]] 

message: Fanny Blankers-Koen has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fanny Blankers-Koen FAR

message: First, I'd like to see some comments on how race results are shown.  One option is to simply use wiki markup like "#" for numbering, as shown in this edit of Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics - Men's 50 metre freestyle.  I have taken the liberty of reformatting using tables (as shown in this edit], in case it is not top edit).  The tradeoff here is that the first format is easier to create, but the second one (I think) is clearer to read because the times are lined up, tie results are handled properly (i.e. you can skip over numbers in ranked lists) and the TOC can be shown because heat headings are embedded within the table.  The downside is that table markup isn't as obvious to a casual editor.  My question to this WikiProject is: should we standardize on the more complex approach, in an effort to gain better visual presentation, or do we want to make it easier for new editors to make these pages?
----
: Table.  Much better look.  Especially helpful for ties.  New editors are certainly welcome to use numbered lists; it's pretty easy to change the formatting for them. -- Jonel | Speak 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Table. Having the heat times and ranks all aligned because they have their own column - instead of letting the swimmers' name length deciding that - is much more important, in my opinion, to the goal which is to display the data in the best and clearest way. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Definitely table. It just looks nicer. → JARED (t)  21:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Race results - table or wiki list?

message: Second is the way in which we present the small summary table of medalists at the top of the page.  There are several formats out there, and I really think we ought to converge upon one.  Here are some options:
1. (from Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres
		
2. (from Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics - Men's shot put
Men's shot put			
3. (from Wrestling at the 1904 Summer Olympics - Men's freestyle light flyweight
Gold	Silver	Bronze
    	      	
4. (from Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's C-1 500 metres)
Gold  	
Silver	
Bronze	
5. (from Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 105 kg)
Gold  	
Silver	
Bronze	
...and several others, but mostly those haven't been updated in a while.
Here are my thoughts.  I prefer the "vertical" format (#4 and #5) for a couple of reasons.  I think it looks better for events in which there are teams of 2-4 people (for example, Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's K-2 1000 metres).  Also, you don't have to deal with different column widths for the three medalists.  I had been using format #4 for a while, but after seeing Jonel's usage of format #3, I switched to format #5 in a few places.  I think format #2 suffers because the entire Event column is redundant to the pages on which these tables will be seen.
Anyway, if we get consensus here (perhaps on #5 as a hybrid of all the styles), I'd like to start adopting these everywhere applicable, perhaps creating a template or three to assist.
----
: I think I've used 1, 2, and 3 recently... The horizontal format is nice because it's consistent with the sport pages (which is why 2 is what I'm using at the moment).  I'd prefer them without the medal images.  The point about redundancy of the event name is well-taken; I'd say #1 is the way to go. -- Jonel | Speak 23:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to speak to you about this and I'm glad Andrwsc mentioned it now (always you! :)) - I kinda like the horizontal display (it ocuppies space in a better way), but I also agree with Andrwsc that for non-single medalists situations the vertical display is free of column-width changes. As opposed to Jonel, I've been recently using #4 on all diving summary tables because I took that version from the events pages at Diving at the 2004 Summer Olympics (edited by Andrwsc), but I personally prefer #5 also. Better looking, indeed. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The first table, definetely. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 01:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was experimenting with some templates and came up with  etc. (see example usage here).  If we get consensus on the vertical format, this would greatly simplify its implementation.  We can decide upon the medal icon etc. independantly (e.g. #5 vs. #4), as it would only take 3 edits to update all instances at the same time....   Andrwsc 19:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as spatial aesthetics (if it exists) goes, the horizontal table also appeals a bit more to me. It stretches from one side of the page to the other. But I also like the vertical box and the way it can take multiple names in a more fluid manner. I'm growing divided on this - I leave it to you to decide. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 02:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Medalist summary - which table format?

message: On a related note, I think we ought to "retire" .  I don't think it's been completely maintained (e.g. synchronized swimming still doesn't show up in it!!) and I think the set of templates visible from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Templates is a much better way to see at a glance what redlinks still exist (only a handful of demo events as I write this).  
Similarly,  and especially  are quite out of date.  The full set of "NOCinxxxxOlympics" templates has been diligently maintained, so I think the best way of navigating the complete list of "Nation at the year Olympics" articles is by viewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Templates.  There are no redlinked articles for any of the per-nation per-Games type.  All that remain are the overview "Nation at the Olympics" and/or "Nation at the Summer Olympics"/"Nation at the Winter Olympics" pair, and I'm working on that as per previous discussion. Andrwsc 18:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used it often in the past, but never truely questioned the validity of it. It is very useful, but if it is not up to date, then it's not worth keeping (except for historical purposes in an archive). I just have always used those to gauge the Olympics pages of WP. → JARED (t)  20:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article checklists

message: As I was following Andrwsc's idea of creating a category to contain all the per-Games pages of a certain Olympic event (in the case I'm working with, :Category:Diving at the Olympics - Men's springboard) as an complement to the already existing "Sport events at the Year Season Olympics", I also tried to devise a navigation template that would follow this idea. What I came up, for now, was one template containing all the springboard events (men and women) at year Summer Olympics (User:Parutakupiu/Springboard) and another linking to all the platform events (User:Parutakupiu/Platform). 
As you can see, I tried to put both individual and synchronized women and men events on one template, to prevent creating multiple ones. But I guess they're a bit big, even with a collapsible option (I'd think they should be non-collapsible as with the "Sport at Season Olympics" counterparts). What you think of them? Helpful? Redundant? And about the format? Suggestions?
P.S.: I'm a bit of a template freak if you have noticed :P Parutakupiu talk || contribs 19:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More templates 

message: I've noticed, that someone added one self-created wrestling pictogram into all "Wrestling at the NNNN Summer Olympics" articles. Even where official pictograms were available, they were replaced. As there were unique sports pictograms designed for many Olympics, I believe that replacement to be inappropriate and confusing. I see those self-made pictograms to be appropriate in articles and templates, that refer to "Wrestling at the Olympics" as a whole (for example, in ), but not in ones, that are limited to wrestling events at particular Olympics. Cmapm 10:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Official pictograms are encumbered with copyright.  Parutakupiu was kind enough to create these pictograms and release them into the public domain.  Since free content is a major goal of Wikipedia, the free pictograms are better than the official ones.  They also serve to give a consistency across Wikipedia pages. -- Jonel | Speak 12:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I hadn't found any understanding here before, and have no hope to find it in the future. Now you even don't bother to address my points, showing, that such free pictograms could be held equivalent to each set of official ones. This reminds me "standardization" of the education by using textbooks in one language for all races and peoples :) Go on with your "nice work", guys :) Cmapm 13:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I recently uploaded the 2008 pictograms under the  license, which I think will work for the purposes of this encyclopedia. I think that it is good to have a set of common pictograms, but I also think that where available, the per-games pictograms are fine to use because they're under a fair use license, and they're only used (each one) on one or two pages anyway. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of Olympic pictograms

message: You may remember me from the discussion of "NationsinOlympics" some months ago.  I just was notified that someone had proposed deletion of Gambia at the Olympics for non-notability.  I'm not aware of what you as a project have decided about these articles, so would some of you project members please comment on the talk page?  Thanks!  Nyttend 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gambia at the Olympics 

message: You've already been "warned"... so what do you think of it? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 03:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea. I don't think it's so much a way to get rid of those who don't contribute, but a way to keep tabs on who is able to help out when help is needed (but that's pretty much the same thing). Anyway, I reapplied, but I see you haven't yet! (You must still be trying to get out of doing the rest of those pictograms! Haha, just kidding!) └Jared┘┌talk┐  10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no. Not in that way. It is just a way to check who is really interested ;) (Don't worry, I'm not running away :P) Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Members/Membership update|Membership update]] 

message: Hello, I just added the first qualified teams for the Diving synchronized events. But there's a problem. China as the host nation is automatically qualified, but China also qualified as one of three medal winners in at least two competitions during the World Championships. Does this mean the 4th placed teams at the WC also directly qualify for Beijing, or will the additional place be given at the World Cup as well. Here are the qualification standards . But I don't think, they are all that clear in this regard. Neville Longbottom 14:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've found the answer myself. A PDF document on the FINA website said, that the top three finishers plus the host nation qualify, this has to mean the fourth ranked team is qualified as well. Neville Longbottom 14:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diving Qualification

message: List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics has been nominated for deletion (nomination page) as redundant to Bids for Olympic Games and Bids for Olympic Games (ballots). -- Jonel | Speak 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Voted. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 04:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion nomination

message: It's not too important, but I'm just putting it out there that List of cities that failed in their bids to host the Olympics was nominated for deletion. I would really have no problem with it, but I wanted to see what you thought. └Jared┘┌talk┐  21:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too slow! I got in 2 minutes ahead of you ;). -- Jonel | Speak 05:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha. I didn't even look! └Jared┘┌talk┐  22:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: I've worked my way through lots of Olympic results and statistics and made List of multiple Olympic gold medalists. It lists about 300 athletes who have won 3 or more Gold medals in the Olympics. Idealy we should maybe list them all, but they are simply too many, so I had to stop somewhere and decided on 3 gold as a good cut-off point. The list is then 46k, which is acceptable. The table is sortable every way, so it's usefull also to easily look up which athletes are the most winning from a particular nation, sport or period. I'm happy with it myself, but would like input on any way it can be improved. And in particular I'll be thankful for any corrections or additions. I've tried to double-check everything, but I'm sure there are still typos or mistakes in there. And there are most likely still some athletes missing. In particular I expect there are maybe a few sailors, rowers and maybe some less famous teamsports athletes that are still missing. There are also 5 redlinks, meaning that we still lack articles on at least 5 athletes who have won 3 gold medals in the olympics. I couldn't find any list like this on the net (that would have made my job much easier...) but if anyone knows about a list like this, it would be interesting to see it so we can compare and see who I've (or maybe they) missed. Thanks! Shanes 21:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great list, Shanes. In fact, this could perfectly be a see also article for the Olympic Games section Olympic champions and medalists, since there is also a summarized tabled list of the type. I think your "3 gold medal" lower limit is quite accceptable considering the reasons you mentioned. Great job! I'm going to tag it for the project. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 05:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! There doesn't seem to be any objections to the list, and after further proof-reading I've gone ahead and added the link to the Olympic games and Lists of Olympic medalists articles. Shanes 13:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Made a listing of multiple olympic gold medalists 

message: Hey, a request has been made for a peer-review of Rugby union at the Summer Olympics. Could some of your please have a read of the article and give any feedback? Would be greatly appreciated. The comments page can be found here. Thanks! - Shudda talk 01:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Changed heading to reflect this -->)Also, I had nominated 2012 Summer Olympics bids for PR, which is located here. └Jared┘┌talk┐  11:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Partial comments given. More to come ;) Btw, I raised a question on Talk:Olympic sports. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 17:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews