Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic conventions

message: ===New project proposals===
Please make all new project proposals on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions/topics.  Adding them below without first suggesting them on the topics page will probably result in their deletion.--Josilot 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Read

message: Please make all new project proposals on this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions/topics.  Adding them below without first suggesting them on the topics page will probably result in their deletion.--Josilot 03:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New project proposals

message: ===Re: Old Resolveds===
All decided resolveds have been moved from this page to here, so as to keep this page cleaner. Do not edit anything on that page, as that is an archive of previous debate.
===A single table should be used to display results tables.===
:(See Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics)
*  Support.   I strongly support this format.  The row heading can link to an event specific page (with full details) if available.  The example given for solution 2 (Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics) also has detailed per-event pages, so I find the "sport summary page" to be too wordy and redundant.  Andrwsc 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe if we put the name of the event with an "extended results" link below it, linking to the event page of that year?  tiZom(2¢) 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree to the principle that clarity is good.  Is this any different than, say, making clear that the list of links under the "Nations" section of a Games' main page links to that nation's results for that Games rather than to a generic article about the country?  I would imagine it could be done with a sentence at the top of the table, just as it's done with the nation pages. -- Jonel | Speak 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.   That was exactly the intent, I thought.  It will be especially important to have a consistent format that works both for historical Olympics (where results may be hard to find, and therefore, the pages might be medal results only) and for current Olympics, where events can almost have too much information.  In the latter case, I like the idea of using the "event summary table" as a front-end navigation piece where you can follow the link to very detailed event-specific pages if you want to read further.  If you only want to see the sport overview, you can get that in a single page view (in most cases) without having to scroll endlessly through a very page single sport page.   Andrwsc 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Resolveds

message: :(See Athletics at the 1900 Summer Olympics)
*  Support.   I strongly support this format.  The row heading can link to an event specific page (with full details) if available.  The example given for solution 2 (Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics) also has detailed per-event pages, so I find the "sport summary page" to be too wordy and redundant.  Andrwsc 23:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe if we put the name of the event with an "extended results" link below it, linking to the event page of that year?  tiZom(2¢) 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree to the principle that clarity is good.  Is this any different than, say, making clear that the list of links under the "Nations" section of a Games' main page links to that nation's results for that Games rather than to a generic article about the country?  I would imagine it could be done with a sentence at the top of the table, just as it's done with the nation pages. -- Jonel | Speak 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment.   That was exactly the intent, I thought.  It will be especially important to have a consistent format that works both for historical Olympics (where results may be hard to find, and therefore, the pages might be medal results only) and for current Olympics, where events can almost have too much information.  In the latter case, I like the idea of using the "event summary table" as a front-end navigation piece where you can follow the link to very detailed event-specific pages if you want to read further.  If you only want to see the sport overview, you can get that in a single page view (in most cases) without having to scroll endlessly through a very page single sport page.   Andrwsc 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A single table should be used to display results tables.

message: * Comment.  Why should Wikipedia rank countries, which are not comparable??? It makes sense to say how many medals the US had won, or East Germany or Germany or Russia- but it makes no sense to say US ranks number one ... I would list the countries with their medals alphabetical!!! without a rank (by the way - that also the soul of the Olympic - it don't won't to say - this or this ist the best. Or why do you want to say the US is the first (the best) - in the winter games the US was always among the best but never "the" best. -Thomas (East) Germany
** Comment.  These are olympic GAMES, so must be a winner. By random of (as mention in some previous posts) politcis, geographics, economics, so far it has taken the role of those countries to win the games. Let's have olympic spirit, and not take personal biased partial thoughts about any country to present the (real) data in a desired way.JD 14:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries should be ranked in alphabetical order, not regarding rank at all. 

message: *neutral - I'm referring to the templates used through  and related templates.  They're off right now.  Suggestions beyond including or not including the images would also be very welcome. -- Jonel | Speak 01:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Competitors' medal templates should include the gold/silver/bronze medal images'''

message: ===Total Medal Counts Must Include Info on How Often Nations Participated===
The total medal count sites seem to be dominated by a bunch of self-reinforcing US patriots determined to make the US look much better than it deserves. For example, a recent total medal count makes the US look twice as good as the USSR and other rarely participating nations, exploiting the fact that the US has been a single political entity since the first Olympics in 1896, while the USSR never participated before 1952 and does not even exist any more. However, the USSR beat the US almost every time both nations participated (Winter total medal count victories: USSR vs USA 9:0, Summer: 6:2, Total: 15:2). Actually: Summer games would be 7:2 If you include the Unified Team which is basically USSR under a different name.
One way around this extreme US bias would be to insert an extra column listing how often the various political entities really took part in the games, to make clear that such tables are really comparing apples and oranges. In addition, there should be a separate table stating the number of medal count victories per nation in relation to how often they participated.
Those who are systematically trying to edit history by suppressing such crucial pieces of information disqualify themselves from being considered as serious discussion partners, no matter how many pseudonyms they invent to support their claims. Medalstats 10:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  - An idea could be to also create some medal count tables for different time periods, since they would probably show some interesting differences. I would imagine to have a table over the Olympics before the First World War, one for those between the World Wars, one for the time of the post-war era (Olympics of 1948 to 1988, perhaps also including 1992, since this was just after the dissolvment of the Soviet Union and the former Soviet states competed together as the Unified Team) and one for the time since then. Perhaps other periods would be more interesting? John Anderson 01:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Comment.   None of these proposals in explaining the "discrepancies" between national medal counts are practical.  There are a lot of factors involved, often in combination with one another.  We can't simply pinpoint one variable, and claim that it's fully responsible for such differences in the tally. We shouldn't be conducting original research in deciding which factor is deemed to be the primary cause of tally differences, since it is against Wikipedia policy. --Madchester 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, Dr. Frog, that it may be used in other sources, but the Wikipedia community has decided to use Women's for all events. --Jared  [T]/[+] 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only in figure skating. All skating and skiing disciplines use the term ladies.--Nitsansh 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official IOC site uses both, so I don't think it really matters.  It's quite trivial if you ask me. King nothing 2 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well see the problem is that some people don't know, and they tried their hardest to look for IOC-true facts. The IOC does in fact use both terms, so I beieve both are acceptable. The fact isn't that the Wikipedia community is ignorant; it is that people like you did not show up in time! I appreciate your attempt at repeal. If enough people support this debate, it will be reinstated. --Jared  [T]/[+] 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The gender terms are determined by the international federations. ISU and FIS use the term ladies for all skating and skiing events. Together these 2 sports make up the majority of events in the winter Olympics (to be precise, there were 27 events for ladies and 10 for women in Torino).--Nitsansh 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is also time-dependent, right?  Gene Nygaard 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure you aren't assuming at least some facts not in evidence? Gene Nygaard 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 
Google                                                                    	hits
women's figure site:olympic.org                                           	139
ladies figure site:olympic.org                                            	18
women's skiing OR slalom OR downhill OR aerials OR moguls site:olympic.org	429
ladies skiing OR slalom OR downhill OR aerials OR moguls site:olympic.org 	23
*neutral You make a good point there, Gene. I mean, some sites refer to the events as such, maybe even the IOC, but I guess this issue can be related to the Metric issue we've been "battling" about recently: WP:MOSNUM says to use a space between unit and number for all pages, even the olympics ones (but this doesn't mean that I'm fully giving in ☺). So all of the Olympics pages should use women, even if some sites use Ladies. Although the fact that I voted neutral comes from the fact that if the event itself is called ladies, it should be called ladies, just as we wouldn't call the 400m Sprint the ".25 mile Sprint"...it is logical, but its not all that true. --J@red [T]/[+] 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well hello, mister sockpuppet.  I'm getting quite tired of your annoying attempts to add frivolous information to otherwise simple tables.  It's funny that you don't see the irony in your claim that all the medal count tables "reek of US POV."  We are trying to provide simple, unadulterated numbers.  The only person trying to push their POV is you.  King nothing 2 11:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. As the creator of this page, I totally agree,  as this will get us more support and the backing of a WikiProject. I do ask that all consensuses from this forum shall be kept and used until new debates come up to oppose the current ones. We don't want to lose all of the work we've gotten in the past couple weeks, right? --Jared  [T]/[+] 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion Topics (yet to become resolveds)

message: The total medal count sites seem to be dominated by a bunch of self-reinforcing US patriots determined to make the US look much better than it deserves. For example, a recent total medal count makes the US look twice as good as the USSR and other rarely participating nations, exploiting the fact that the US has been a single political entity since the first Olympics in 1896, while the USSR never participated before 1952 and does not even exist any more. However, the USSR beat the US almost every time both nations participated (Winter total medal count victories: USSR vs USA 9:0, Summer: 6:2, Total: 15:2). Actually: Summer games would be 7:2 If you include the Unified Team which is basically USSR under a different name.
One way around this extreme US bias would be to insert an extra column listing how often the various political entities really took part in the games, to make clear that such tables are really comparing apples and oranges. In addition, there should be a separate table stating the number of medal count victories per nation in relation to how often they participated.
Those who are systematically trying to edit history by suppressing such crucial pieces of information disqualify themselves from being considered as serious discussion partners, no matter how many pseudonyms they invent to support their claims. Medalstats 10:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  - An idea could be to also create some medal count tables for different time periods, since they would probably show some interesting differences. I would imagine to have a table over the Olympics before the First World War, one for those between the World Wars, one for the time of the post-war era (Olympics of 1948 to 1988, perhaps also including 1992, since this was just after the dissolvment of the Soviet Union and the former Soviet states competed together as the Unified Team) and one for the time since then. Perhaps other periods would be more interesting? John Anderson 01:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Comment.   None of these proposals in explaining the "discrepancies" between national medal counts are practical.  There are a lot of factors involved, often in combination with one another.  We can't simply pinpoint one variable, and claim that it's fully responsible for such differences in the tally. We shouldn't be conducting original research in deciding which factor is deemed to be the primary cause of tally differences, since it is against Wikipedia policy. --Madchester 16:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Total Medal Counts Must Include Info on How Often Nations Participated'''

message: First of all I'd like to sincerely apologize for those parts of my earlier text above that could be classified as offensive - please accept my apologies! The outcome of the debate above, however, seems to be roughly 50-50 or so. This encouraged me to make an (in my opinion) POV-free and informative table providing medal statistics for the Olympic medal count winners of all Summer & Winter Games as well as for the most successful countries / organizations that had several National Olympic Committees (NOCs) in the past, such as USSR/CIS, Germany (East, West), and the EU, to the extent that these are widely recognized and a general interest in such matters is reflected by other articles inside and outside of Wikipedia (numerous sources are given in the article's talk page). The table shows the total number of medals and participations as of 2006, the average number of medals and golds per Games, the number of medal count victories and gold count victories (also per Games), and the average number of people per medal and per gold (rounded). Light background colors gold, silver, bronze indicate the first three in various categories. Entities with several NOCs are separately listed; their medal counts are based on the sums of the medals of their NOCs. All data is taken from Wikipedia sources. Here is the table: Olympic Medal Statistics: Medal Count Winners. Recently, however, someone nominated this table for deletion. Of course, I disagree with this deletion proposal, although I agree that the article can be improved. The deletion discussion can be found here: this article's entry. Comments are welcome! Medalstats 14:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal Statistics of Medal Count Winners / Deletion Debate 

message: Note:This topic is up for debate again because of a possible mistake in consensus. Please see below for more information.
I'd like to point out that "ladies" (and not "women") is the official and correct terminology in the sport of figure skating.  Yes, it's sexist and anachronistic, but that's the way it is.
References:  
*ISU Regulations
*Listed as "ladies" on official Torino web site
Dr.frog 13:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, Dr. Frog, that it may be used in other sources, but the Wikipedia community has decided to use Women's for all events. --Jared  [T]/[+] 20:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only in figure skating. All skating and skiing disciplines use the term ladies.--Nitsansh 21:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official IOC site uses both, so I don't think it really matters.  It's quite trivial if you ask me. King nothing 2 21:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Well see the problem is that some people don't know, and they tried their hardest to look for IOC-true facts. The IOC does in fact use both terms, so I beieve both are acceptable. The fact isn't that the Wikipedia community is ignorant; it is that people like you did not show up in time! I appreciate your attempt at repeal. If enough people support this debate, it will be reinstated. --Jared  [T]/[+] 01:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The gender terms are determined by the international federations. ISU and FIS use the term ladies for all skating and skiing events. Together these 2 sports make up the majority of events in the winter Olympics (to be precise, there were 27 events for ladies and 10 for women in Torino).--Nitsansh 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is also time-dependent, right?  Gene Nygaard 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you sure you aren't assuming at least some facts not in evidence? Gene Nygaard 22:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 
Google                                                                    	hits
women's figure site:olympic.org                                           	139
ladies figure site:olympic.org                                            	18
women's skiing OR slalom OR downhill OR aerials OR moguls site:olympic.org	429
ladies skiing OR slalom OR downhill OR aerials OR moguls site:olympic.org 	23
*neutral You make a good point there, Gene. I mean, some sites refer to the events as such, maybe even the IOC, but I guess this issue can be related to the Metric issue we've been "battling" about recently: WP:MOSNUM says to use a space between unit and number for all pages, even the olympics ones (but this doesn't mean that I'm fully giving in ☺). So all of the Olympics pages should use women, even if some sites use Ladies. Although the fact that I voted neutral comes from the fact that if the event itself is called ladies, it should be called ladies, just as we wouldn't call the 400m Sprint the ".25 mile Sprint"...it is logical, but its not all that true. --J@red [T]/[+] 22:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In both figure skating and skiing, the female events should be refered to as the "Ladies' events"

message: Click here to view the proposed "wins" tables.
On the Winter Olympics medal count page, somebody made a "Wins" section in which they listed the number of times each country has "won" a Winter Olympics game (by won I mean they ranked first in number of golds for that year).  This listing was just in plain text though, so yesterday I turned it into a table.  I was wondering if you guys think the "wins" section is a good idea.  If so, I will add these tables to the Summer Olympics medal count page and the Total Olympics medal count page.  They would look something like this: Click here.
King nothing 2 07:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well hello, mister sockpuppet.  I'm getting quite tired of your annoying attempts to add frivolous information to otherwise simple tables.  It's funny that you don't see the irony in your claim that all the medal count tables "reek of US POV."  We are trying to provide simple, unadulterated numbers.  The only person trying to push their POV is you.  King nothing 2 11:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A "wins" table should be included in both of the all-time counts ([[Winter Olympics medal count|Winter]]/[[Summer Olympics medal count|Summer]]).

message: Some of the problems of the use of this debate (as good as it has been) have stemed from it not being part of a proper WikiProject. One exists for the Olympics and I am proposing that this debate should become a formal part of that WikiProject and be renamed into that "namespace". Issues surrounding the establishment of wikipedia policy would also be mitigated if we treated this rather an agreed way of working largely amoungst ourselves and we should be up for persuading our colleages and fellow editors of the wisdom of our agreements. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. As the creator of this page, I totally agree,  as this will get us more support and the backing of a WikiProject. I do ask that all consensuses from this forum shall be kept and used until new debates come up to oppose the current ones. We don't want to lose all of the work we've gotten in the past couple weeks, right? --Jared  [T]/[+] 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Olympic_conventions should be adopted by the WikiProject Sports Olympics - and to serve this end and promote fuller and consistent project based debate be renamed [[:Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympics conventions]]

message: Thanks for setting this process up. It seems to have been very successful thus far: civil, and consensus being reached on all points to date.
I like your little coloured discs: we should have them on all vote pages (although it is moot to point out that Wikipedia is not a democracy).--Mais oui! 09:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Yeah, the support, oppose, and neutral circles were already in wikipedia, so I decided to make the other two just because I could. haha. They seem to be working well. you don't have to read the whole thing in order to figure out what their angle is! --Jared  [T]/[+] 13:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I was told that I cannot use these templates anymore, (see the template on the main page) because they are against a previous consensus. I really like them though, they make it easy to spot whether there is a support or oppose, etc vote. Is it possible to have another debate about bringing them back. I'm sure there would be a lot of people to support me. --Jared  [T]/[+] 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that is lame. I like them. Oh well. I personally hate the Keep and Oppose anyway, it really makes it freaking impossible to decipher what is going on. --Omnieiunium 21:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: There are a lot of different formats around and I think they need to be standardized.Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scroll down mate. --Omnieiunium 22:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal tables

message: Uhm... I find the page move to be quite unhelpful.  If we're going to get consensus on conventions, comments are necessary.  Having the main project page simply be a list of votes and specifically telling people not to add commentary there is unwelcoming and could very well discourage rational discourse.  Until the move, Wikipedia:Olympic conventions was a wonderfully helpful page for discussing conventions.  It was an example of how polls here should work, and a counter-argument against Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#Template:Support_and_Template:Object_and_Template:Oppose.  Now that it's just a list of people's "votes", I don't find it helpful, especially since it is parallel to the discussion.  If we want to have the project page be a list of conventions already decided on through discussion on WP talk:, that's fine.  But a vote parallel to the discussion?  Not so great. -- Jonel | Speak 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jonel on this one and found the move and reformat to be rather jarring. After going to Jared's talk page and reading the long comment by Josilot I understand the thinking behind doing what you did, but I don't agree with it. Also, the whole 1500m vs. 1500 metres vs. 1.500 metres, etc. is a critical piece that seems to have reached consensus but is now no longer on the main Olympic conventions page. That doesn't seem to make any sense. Sue Anne 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me Jared got halfway through the reconstruction and stopped.  This definitely needs cleaned up. All of the votes from this page in support, opposition, or neutral to a poll should be reflected on the project page. --Josilot 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, after reading Jonel's argument about having the vote parrellel to the discussion has given me a lot to think about.  I think I agree with his point.  Maybe the supports/opposes from the main page should be added here, for now anyway, until the format of this page has been finalized, to remove confusion.  The idea, to me, was to separate polls from proposed polls.  But since Jared already started a new page for proposed polls, that point seems mute.--Josilot 02:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'm going to try and fix this now, hang on.--Josilot 02:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I don't understand this constant reformatting of the page with seemingly no discussion of others that are heavily involved in the Olympics. This most recent one is a bit flabergasting in splitting up the two different discussions regarding how the whole length of something is done. Sue Anne 21:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be glad to address your concern. There are certain topics that were introduced from the beginning that were acceptable for this discussion. Further along down the line, however, people kept contributing resolveds that either stated nothing, were comments, or were not acceptable for this debate. They were kept in the page because they had many comments on them already. I just completed this moving of the articles because the resolveds that will actually become wiki policy should be separate from the ones that are just discussion, or they are redundant or opposing to a current debate. I chose the ones I did from careful observation of the comments and history of the page, seeing which ones came first, etc. If there are any that you think should be moved to the top, please say so. I may have been quick to do something like this, but I am the creator of this page, and I know what I had in mind when I made it. You are right, though, in that I should discuss the layout of this page before I change it. I will do so next time, if I deem it necessary. Thanks for voicing your concern. --Jared  [T]/[+] 21:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformatting Page

message: In demonstration events, should the top three places be first, second and third, rather than gold, silver and bronze? Andjam 02:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. No medals are awarded for demonstration events. Also, don't count these in any tables. -- Jonel | Speak 05:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top three places in demonstration events 

message: Given that the debate is currently still undecided when it comes to the medal images, I think it's incredibly misleading to use the cartoony medal images on the "official" resolved page. Sue Anne 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point. I will change it to "Gold", etc. written out, if someone hasn't done it already. --Jared  [T]/[+] 19:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of medal images in Resolved:Countries should be ranked according to the type of medal they have, not the quantity 

message: One of the first things I noticed here, unlike any WikiProject I've been involved with, in something on the project page inviting people to list themselves as participants in the project, and inviting them to participate in the discussions even if they haven't listed themselves as participants.
I also noticed that there were no categories at the bottom of the project page.  So I decided to look into it a little bit more.  First of all, I'd expect to find this on either :Category:WikiProject Sports or :Category:Sport WikiProjects, two categories whose merger has been proposed.  But this project is not listed there.
However, there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics which does exist and is legitimately formed in accordance with Wikipedia:Wikiprojects.
As such, I am pointing out that this whole bogus "project" has no legitimacy whatsover, and that whatever the "owner" of this project page decides to declare "decided conventions" are of no standing whatsoever. 
Of course, Jared already knows that.  He has listed himself as a participant in that project, which declares on its page that no descendant projects have been defined, and the only similar sister project identified is Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports team listing. Gene Nygaard 01:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I'd like to point out that this isn't a WikiProject, it is merely a collaboration to achieve an unofficial consensus on potention olympic conventions. Therefore, almost everything you've said is meaningless. Next, it is not you're job to sit in your computer chair and tell this forum how bad it is. There are a lot of people who have found it successful, and would be happy to go by the new conventions. Which leads me to my next point; think of this collaboration like the ADA (American Dental Association): It is set up so that people who have their products go through it (like toothpaste) will look better and more legit. It is not required to pass the ADA standards, but using them would be beneficial. That's exactly the concept I had in mind when I started this forum. If your sole purpose here is to badmouth my work, please refrain and do that elsewhere. --Jared  [T]/[+] 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I took your comments, so I added a list on the main page for users who contributed (which would exclude you) and a UBX for the "forum". I added this as a sort of sister project to the olympics one. Thanks for the suggestions! --Jared  [T]/[+] 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's missing, in this bogus forum?

message: I am very happy with this Olympic Convention page.  It's resolving a lot of issues that are important, especially considering the volume of Olympic-related articles out there.  Rather than list a bunch of random conventions, though, might we be able to turn this into an all-inclusive guide to creating an Olympic-related article?  It would be a lot of work due to the variety of types of Olympic articles (e.g. Greece at the 1996 Summer Olympics, Mark Spitz, Biathlon at the 2006 Winter Olympics), but I think it would be a tremendous help for everyone.  tiZom(2¢) 21:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic Guide 

message: I have determined that there was consensus during the recent mfd discussion for the page at Wikipedia:Olympic conventions to become a part of this WikiProject.  I have thus moved the page to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions.  I would hope all parties can now seize the initiative to work together in building on the progress made at that page, and integrating it into this wikiproject.  I also hope the conventions identified there, which I have for now marked as proposed, can be strengthened by discussion of all parties.  Happy editing, Hiding  talk 23:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic conventions now a subpage of WikiProject Sports Olympics