Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 5

message: My turn, I guess.  I think I did an OK job of cleaning up the volleyball articles, (certainly got rid of the god-awful "block tables").  Anyway, I was looking at some previous discussions on this page dealing with tournament brackets, and I think brackets would be a good idea for the playoffs of the volleyball articles.  Any thoughts?  Any other ideas on improving those articles? Perakhantu 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should definitely use the brackets system, if there is a quarter-final phase — a huge visual helper :) Perhaps something could also be done on the way the fixtures are displayed, something on the line of . Parutakupiu talk || contribs 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree that the current results are kinda crammed to one side (and for the regular volleyball, it doesn't say how each set was scored).  For the bracket system, I was thinking of using something along the lines of tennis doubles.  Since the first names are already known from the pool play, using just the last names would work for the brackets.  On a side note, I thought that I had done a decent job cleaning up those pages, but now that I look at them some more, I see that I'm not even half-way done.  Perakhantu 23:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think that once we get this into brackets, it looks much better, because it's consolidated. I had started doing the Badminton articles earlier, and they looked much as the volleyball ones did. For example, Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's doubles. But I bracketed those results, making it look more like Badminton at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's singles, which is much better. Now, I would suggest using this template: . The actual individual-game scores can be found here, so I would suggest that this would make it more complete, and the tennis template would allow for multiple games to be recorded, much like the badminton ones. └Jared┘┌t┐  23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've hit a stumbling block.  That  works perfectly, save for one little detail.  It does not allow for 3rd place matches.  I DO NOT want the volleyball pages to look like the brackets for singles badminton with the 3rd place match kicked down to the bottom of the page (that is my only beef with the badminton template).  Is there some way to combine the tennis template with the one for fencing? All that is really needed to be done is to somehow insert the third-place match right into the bracket.  This is my work so far (men's beach volleyball):
Perakhantu 22:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was the one who made Template:32TeamBracket-Compact-NoSeeds with the bronze medal game inside the bracket, so if you give me some time, I can do the same for 16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3.  Andrwsc 23:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I started thinking about having the dates of the matches incorperated into the bracket as well.  Something along the lines of boxing.  Of course then we would be getting into very specialized templates that would be more of pain to keep track of.  seeds? no seeds? 3rd place? no 3rd place? etc. etc. etc.  BLEH!  Anyway, following the KISS principle would probably be best.  So, thanks for helping me out Andrwsc. Perakhantu 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, in response to the whole lack of a third-place medal match thing, it's really too bad because I really don't like how the badminton one looks either. I'm really not sure how to fix it, save for making a new section, or manually fixing the template to allow for it. Anyhow, I was looking at the men's indoor page, and I'm wondering why it's only down to an 8 team bracket? Is it just that some of the other matches are still up in tables above? That's what I figure. That should be fine, but a full bracket would be nice. Ah well. └Jared┘┌t┐  00:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the reason is that there were 2 pools in which the volleyball teams played, with 8 teams per a pool.  The top 4 teams from each pool advanced to the playoffs (quarterfinals); hence the 8 teams.  So, there was never really a full single elimination tournament.  Parutakupiu brought up the idea of having the pool play games in the style of , but with 3 to 5 sets a match, I have no idea how to pull that off.  Perakhantu 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Volleyball articles

message: Recently, four categories that do not match the rest of the project's categorization scheme have been created:
:: Category:Canadian athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics
::Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2004 Summer Olympics
:: Category:Canadian athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics
::Category:Competitors for Canada at the 2000 Summer Olympics
The intersection of country and year seems unnecessary to me, not to mention the intersection of sport, country, and year.  There is a discussion concerning them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:Canadian athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 8#Category:Canadian athletes at the 2004 Summer Olympics.  Those discussions started as a request to merge the athletes into the competitors; but, I think it may be good to eliminate all four of them.  If you are interested, please comment there.  Neier 22:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  I noticed that over the weekend, but haven't been able to string enough time together to do the dirty work.  The USA also has a 1904 category to go with the 1908 one. Neier 10:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Have you seen, that we have a new member? Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Members Maybe we will send him a welcome message? Doma-w 23:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is Bill Mallon, alright, he probably should have registered before subscribing the project. Anyway, if true, it's the most terrific member this project could have. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 03:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New member

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Murray (athlete)
-- Jonel | Speak 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another deletion debate 

message: Folks, could I get a few more pairs of eyes over at 1896 Summer Olympics, International Olympic Committee, and Pierre de Coubertin please?  Some heavy POV-pushing going on there.  Thanks. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right.... I think the editor may have a point if there is sufficient belief in those statements among the general population, but from what I know, they just seem to be a minority opinion. Perhaps, though, I'm uninformed. Regardless, I don't think that old info should be replaced with new info; it should instead supplement the already existing theories. I don't want to revert the editor, but would suggest that he/she provide both viewpoints (if the latter is in fact popular). └Jared┘┌t┐  20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, please watch your style of discussion on talk pages, edit summaries, etc.  You come across as very heavy-handed, giving us commands to what we should do.  You will not gain any allies this way.  Please work within proper Wikipedia etiquette guidelines.  Andrwsc 20:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have reason to believe that there were other founders (co-founders or collaborators, perhaps) who helped in the revival of the Olympic Games, then as long as you have sources to adequately back this up, I see no reason to include this in articles. However, there are currently sources indicating that Coubertin actually revived the games. We cannot just remove this information based on the claims of someone else that negate this. Rather, we can supplement the information. We are not attempting here at Wikipedia to offer an opinion of a topic, but rather show the evidence for anything that relates to it. └Jared┘┌t┐  20:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Olympic history 

message: Before I nominate 1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita and 2000 Summer Olympics medals per capita for deletion, I would just like to know if there would be any opposition to it. I doubt it, but I don't want to be a jerk if someone actually likes it. I see Jonel has already once tried to redirect them, but he was quickly reverted, so I think AfD is in order. I'll fish around, while I'm at it, for other potential candidates that shouldn't be here! └Jared┘┌t┐  17:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go for it!!!  Andrwsc 17:52, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow, a page I've never even heard of.  Talk about useless.  I certainly won't lose any sleep over it's deletion. Perakhantu 18:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The deed is done. └Jared┘┌t┐  18:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that this AfD has closed, anybody want to try and re-re-re-re-nominate European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics?  ;)  Andrwsc 18:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another useless article.  Are there any more of these "interpretive articles" floating around out there?  I know there once was a page that listed the countries from the tropics who competed at the winter olympics, but I guess that got deleted.  Back to the article that you mentioned, Andrwsc.  There was a strong push to get it deleted when it first came out, and I personally don't see it being deleted now, unfortunately.   I guess we have to be on guard about crap like this popping up right after the 2008 games.  Perakhantu 01:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I think the opposite is true.  Previous attempts to delete it took place right around those Games, and lots of "occasional" editors got involved in the discussion, while their own patriotism/nationalism/etc. emotions were running high.  I think that in the current "quiet period" between Games, more objective discussion can take place.  Andrwsc 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion request