Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 1

message: I made 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 15:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal Statistics of Medal Count Winners 

message: I've seen the proposals for the olympic games details and wondered if you would like to see what I have done for the 2006 Commonwealth Games. I've started alphabetically and have today done Aquatics and Athletics.
I have also entered details on Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics as it didn't seem that anybody had really started work on the pages yet??
Scraggy4 17:16, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: So, Wikipedia:Wikipedians at the 2004 Summer Olympics; did anyone take any good photos?  All I can find on the web at the mo are the big news sites, maybe wait a while for the amateurs to get back home and upload them. Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:39, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs 

message: Is Skiing going to be called Cross-contry skiing or just Skiing? brandnewbrain 18:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do we call sports 

message: When I started to add results for 1994 Olympics in Lillehammer, I found a nice way to display medals at Bobsleigh_at_the_2002_Winter_Olympics. So I started using this for the Cross-country_skiing_at_the_1994_Winter_Olympics.
I propose that we use this instead of the table suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics. brandnewbrain 18:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for better tables for results 

message: I want to expand an article about 1980 Olympic Games, adding many details of the opening/closing ceremonies and some info about preparations. I want to take as an example an article about 2004 Olympic Games. I also plan to move the section of this article called "American-led boycott", which deals with political issues surrounding the olympiad, to the separate article American-led boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games, leaving a link to it in the "See also section" (like this is done for the Scandals of the 2004 Summer Olympics) and adding a short piece of information about it in the "Highlights" section (like this is done for the Tanzania-led boycott of the 1976 Olympic Games). Am I right? I have no day-by-day information, so I cannot take as an example an article about 1896 Summer Olympics. Unfortunately, there are very few suggestions about the template for the extended information in the "WikiProject" article and in this discussion. Cmapm 12:05, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding an article

message: Should we add mascot information somewhere? It poses some significance, yet it it failed to be mentioned in most articles. Perhaps in the infobox itself? WB 01:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
:We should, in my view. Although I have some doubts, whether we should add their names into the infobox, because most of them don't have separate pages yet in Wiki. Should we also add a link to the list of Olympic mascots into the "See also" section of each SO/WO article? Cmapm 16:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascot 

message: I suggest a summary page for each nation.  At present there is no place to link a reference to a country's Olympics activity when not referring to a specific event. See Talk:Olympic_Games#National_Olympic_pages. (SEWilco 18:40, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is such place under Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Articles#Country by Year table. Country_at_the_Summer_Olympics pages are all referenced from there, Country_at_the_Winter_Olympics are not referenced yet. If you suggest to create one Country_at_the_Olympics article for each nation, then what do you suggest to do with existing Country_at_the_Summer/Winter_Olympics pages? Cmapm 11:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note - the WikiProject Sports Olympics currently focuses almost entirely on the Summer Games.  At some point, we should probably fix that so that the Winter Games are included. -- Jonel 15:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text:  I suggest existing Country_at_the_Summer/Winter Olympics pages be listed in each national Olympics page.  Each nation would have a page which would be a "portal" to all its Olympics coverage.  A "Current Coverage" section near the top would carry recent info, such as that nation's competition for Olympic sites (if any), future Games (athletes being selected?), and current/recent Games coverage.  Many such pages will be stubs, created by subst: of a skeleton template (remember to include proper Categories in template).  Obviously the national pages will tend to gain editors near each of the Games, so many stubs will be filled in by the time of the next Games.  (SEWilco 17:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Olympic pages 

message: How do we handle this in cases of very long careers? Two or three participation categories might be OK, but if Ragnar Skanåker, for instance, ends up in :Category:Shooters at the 1972 Summer Olympics, :Category:Shooters at the 1976 Summer Olympics, :Category:Shooters at the 1980 Summer Olympics, :Category:Shooters at the 1984 Summer Olympics, :Category:Shooters at the 1988 Summer Olympics, :Category:Shooters at the 1992 Summer Olympics and :Category:Shooters at the 1996 Summer Olympics, I think that's very unwieldly. -- Jao 18:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization of Olympic competitors 

message: Over on the Stub Sorting project's proposals page, I've made a proposal for an Olympic-medalist-stub.  I'd appreciate it if you would make comments either in favor or against the proposal. After all, if you're not interested in the stub, I don't know who would be. Caerwine 05:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic-medalist-stub proposal 

message: The official name is olympics , then why is olympics referred to as 'summer olympics' everywhere? Specially the 1912 olympics , because winter olympics were established only in 1924
:Please refer to my comments on Talk:Summer Olympic Games in response to your question. -- Jonel | Speak 20:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: It should be olympics not 'Summer olympics' 

message: With the games about to start, perhaps it would be a good idea to start one? Rmhermen 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Darned event organizers put the Games right during my mid-term season... I won't have time to keep anything anywhere near up to date, but if someone else has the time, a WikiPortal would be awesome! -- Jonel | Speak 16:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: A portal would be great, and I was also looking to start one. Many people are probably trying to look for information but it is not linked into one page (hence, make a portal). Drop me a message and maybe we can plan what we want to start. --Jared 23:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I see you have started one - For it to be a success it needs properly advertising and maintaining. I have made a start at doing the format and added the WikiProject to the Portal. What we now need is it being maintained. Especially over the lean non Olympic years. Can I propose a specific task force which can have its sub page and aim to work up some targets for it's maintenance. Ideas please. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 12:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it needs to be tended to, cause I havn't done a good job at doing so. I'm not sure what you are proposing though? Could you clarify? Thanks. --Jared  [T]/[+] 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal:Olympics

message: Creating infoboxes to list medals on individual medallists pages is currently being discussed on the helpdesk. I just happened to run into it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Dynamic_Infoboxes
Sue Anne 12:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynamic Infoboxes being discussed on help desk 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: Is Ice hockey: past olympic medalists useful if cleaned up? Rmhermen 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but we already have Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, which has the medallists as well as some other information.  I've redirected there to avoid further duplication of effort. -- Jonel | Speak 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful?

message: I want to alert you guys to a serious problem regarding Short Track speed skaters' articles.  Take a look at Apolo Anton Ohno.  He is categorized as a speed skater but is actually a short track speed skater.  As far as I can tell there are no categories for Short Track.  Even worse, some short track speed skaters' articles refer to them as speed skaters.  I would fix it but I'm not familiar with the guidelines of this WikiProject. zellin t / c 18:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and fix it.  (Note, though, that short track speed skaters are speed skaters - short track speed skating is a subset of speed skating). -- Jonel | Speak 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed Skating/Short Track 

message: Should we use 1500 m or 1,500m or 1.500m. What is the convention on this??
:I'm not sure on convention, buit if it were me, I would use 1500m and no comma or dot. It just looks better. As for whether there should be a space between the number and the distance abreviation, (1500m or 1500 m) I say it is anyone's call. --Jared  [T]/[C]\[P:O]/[@]\[+] 14:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been using, just the 1500, but User:Darius Dhlomo is a prolific editor > 9000 constructive edits all on the olympics, has been changing it to 1.500m. He doesn't use ANY edit summaries, and hasn't responded to my query about this. I think he has made about 10 edits on talk pages or project pages, and seems very relucutant to communicate with any other users whatsoever. Should I just revert them back to 1500, as this seems to be the preferred way on wp:style without even bothering to get him to respond to my request??. REgards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 22:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would give anything for Darius Dhlomo to use edit summaries, since so many of the pages he edits are on my watchlist. I gave my opinion on the Olympic conventions page, but I agree with using either 1500 or 1,500 and not 1.500. I'm also going to try to use metres instead of just the m, but it may take me a bit to get that one in my brain. Sue Anne 08:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think it would be safe to change it back. it seems like it makes more sense that way. maybe if we were in France or some other european country, we would use the dot, but not here (even though meters is a metric system). Go ahead, and I'll back you up if you need help. --Jared  [T]/[C]\[P:O]/[@]\[+] 22:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah.  1500, no comma or dot.  Try to expand the "m" whenever reasonable, as well.  -- Jonel | Speak 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering System 

message: A discussion on conventions has been initiated at Wikipedia:Olympic conventions. -- Jonel | Speak 01:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion elsewhere

message: The guideline says sportspeople only qualify for a bio on WP if they have competed at the highest level. I guess this means the Olympics, but there are rules where any country can have a wildcard regardless of quality, so does that meet WP:BIO. Should athletes who are olympians because they are wildcards not because of meeting the A-qualifying time/distance/requirements notable. Because there are a few of these lying around.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For most of the sports in the Winter Olympics, there are qualification standards. Although there has been some debate in the press prior to the Olympics this year that those qualifications, especially in Alpine skiing, are too strict and don't follow the true Olympic spirit as those countries with less money are unable to compete at that level. My opinion would be that any athlete that competes at the Olympics deserves a bio, even if they don't meet some qualifying requirement. Also, I think some of these folks have more interesting bios than your average American or other top country Olympian. Sue Anne 08:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability for [[WP:BIO]] guidelines for olympic athletes

message: The IOC has many usage restrictions on the Olympic Rings, so they are not free use, despite what some of the more recent uploads to the Commons may suggest. They are currently tagged as fair use which is fine, but templates and tables should not use them for decoration. The image should appear on a very few number of articles, where it is necessary to illustrate the appearance of the rings, and should probably use a lower resolution PNG, as opposed to the SVG version. Due to the number of templates using the logo, this may take quite a bit of cleaning up. For more info see Wikipedia:Fair use. ed g2s • talk 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you make a proposal to do so on Wikipedia:Olympic conventions, where other olympic related things are currently in debate. Make a new heading something like: "The Olympic rings emblem should not be used on medals pages" or something of the like and express your thoughts. Jared 19:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this doesn't really need much discussion let alone a vote. This is merely an application of existing policy. ed g2s • talk 00:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of the Olympic Rings 

message: Hi there, I suppose this is a right place to complain about this: . I think this makes the table to big, especially because the lines break (at least im my browser). If somebody wants to know where the olympics were held, he can click on the year. I liked the smaller table much more. --Dijxtra 18:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you; it would look better with it just saying the date or "'Date' Olympics". What is the status on most of the pages? If the city is losted on most of the pages, I suggest you bring this issue up for debate here. Otherwise, you can just get away with fixing the few pages yourself. --Jared  [T]/[+] 18:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then we should stop this guy! He is systematicaly converting the pages to look awfull. I'll drop him a note on his talk page to join discussion here. --Dijxtra 07:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! --Jared  [T]/[+] 12:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, join discussion here. --Dijxtra 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding city to medal list 

message: I have nominated Jared's page for deletion.  See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Olympic conventions.  Gene Nygaard 15:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination for deletion

message: I just want to see if anyone has an opinion of the separation of the 2006 Winter Olympics medal count and the 2006 Winter Olympics diploma count.. i think the top-8 placements is useful information to have, but there seemed to be an agreement to keep it separate from the medal count, as discussed on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions.. but now it seems silly because the first table is completely contained within the second, making the first somewhat redundant.. any comments? Mlm42 18:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment on the Wikipedia:Olympic conventions page. --Jared  [T]/[+] 20:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  medal count vs. diploma count 

message: I hate to be a stickler, folks, but -- since it really isn't appropriate for the same project to cover the ancient and the modern Olympic Games, I suggest this be retitled, either to "Modern Sports Olympics" or "Modern Olympic Games", the latter title also distinguishes that this is not a project about the Greek divinities.  I will institute this if I hear no objection in five days. Anyone who actually works here may do so first, of course.  Thanks, Xoloz 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Object  There is no crying reason to have any WikiProject on the "ancient" Olympic Games.  There is also no particular reason to preclude consideration of the ancient games in this WikiProject.  Gene Nygaard 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but a project for the ancient Games might arise, as there are some records of individual games.  As an historian, I really think there should be such a project, but I don't have the time, or the topical competence, to start it.  I really don't the Modern and the Ancient games belong under the same project at all, and I hope you'd agree on reflection.  The ancient games were different in their events, their participants, their raison d'etre, their location,... well in just about every way.  Besides, the ancient wikiproject, which I foresee happening, is likely to be staffed by different editors, with an interest in the classics.  There is no crying reason not to change the Project name to something more specifically accurate, in anticipation of the ancient project forming. Xoloz 16:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: yeah, i agree with Gene.. i don't see this becoming a problem. Mlm42 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever coordination could be done with respect to Ancient Olympic Games would probably best be handled at Talk:Ancient Olympic Games.  Gene Nygaard 22:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Object.  When I first saw this heading, I thought I was going to read about changing it to just "WikiProject: Olympics" deleting the sport (which i would support) but since its not, I object, because there isn't an ancient project. if one were to arise some day, though, then maybe I would agree with you. --Jared  [T]/[+] 01:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Object Who is saying that the scope of this project is naturally restricted to the "Modern" games anyway. Can it not be inclusive until the time that such a division of labour is requested/required. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of Project

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)
replies: text: I don't care if anybody else is given or wants to take that responsibility, just so it is clearly not Jared's call.  Gene Nygaard 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that was quite a rude thing to say, Gene, but regardless, I, too, don't think I should be the sole interpreter. I have admitted all along that I needed help and that I did it by myself because minimal people stepped up. I believe that we should have a committee of people who can work together to organize and run this in a reasonably good fashion. (I have posted this same thing on the Olympic page itself.) I hope that we can just put this whole thing behind the two of us and start clean, but by "start clean", I don't mean, start from scratch. There is far too much valuable information gotten from that debate. I think that this should be our "itinerary":
# Decide on a governance and leadership committee;
# Decide what to do about the previous material (whether it be to leave it as is, vote on whether to include it in future discussions or not, or go clean); and
# Start new discussion.
Are you willing to accept these as the starting point for all of this? --J@red [T]/[+] 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to agree with most of what you said. Maybe if you could set up[ a subpage to the conventions page where we could do our brainstorming, that'd be good. And as for my "gevernance" thing, all I meant was that we need some basic guidelines, whether it be from existing rules or actual people. --J@red [T]/[+] 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest archiving the old Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions stuff and using that page for the brainstorming Sue Anne suggests.  That brainstorming might include pulling some relevant stuff out of that archive (and some out of the already archived "votes" as well).  Gene Nygaard 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - the archiving idea - so it is still there and we can have a clear brainstorming forum. I suggest that the first topic should be the idea of 'governance' or how this thing should work. i.e. how it relates to wider Wikipedia policies, procedures, agreements etc. Personally I see this working as an arena defining an agreed way of working amongst ourselves. If we can then persuade others then well and good. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 13:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that the information that has a clear and obvious consensus should be archived and only touched upon in new debates, and anything that is if-fy or has no consensus should be archived and a new debate should be started but it should include some of the points/opinions in the old debates. Opinions? --J@red [T]/[+] 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic conventions now a subpage of WikiProject Sports Olympics 

message: I don't understand how there was any consensus to make it part of this project in that discussion.  How many even mentioned moving it here, especially without qualifications such as "if the WikiProject will have it"?  There has not, of course, been any such agreement here.
But anyway, Hiding does say that it has been added here with all the discussions there marked as proposed.
So if anybody has any sense, we ought to be able to agree to throw the first one out as badly formed.  Better to start from scratch than continue something so vaguely worded and unclear about the conclusions previously drawn by JP06035/Jared.
*You seem to misunderstand the nature of Wikipedia somewhat.  It is an open encyclopedia anyone can edit.  To clarify my reading of the consensus, it seemed clear to me that after setting aside the two partisan views, the rest of the participants all believed a move was in the best interests of the information and the encyclopedia.  No agreement here is necessary; if it is unwanted, it can be listed for deletion again, or alternatively, the page can be archived or rewritten. Hiding  talk 21:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care if anybody else is given or wants to take that responsibility, just so it is clearly not Jared's call.  Gene Nygaard 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that that was quite a rude thing to say, Gene, but regardless, I, too, don't think I should be the sole interpreter. I have admitted all along that I needed help and that I did it by myself because minimal people stepped up. I believe that we should have a committee of people who can work together to organize and run this in a reasonably good fashion. (I have posted this same thing on the Olympic page itself.) I hope that we can just put this whole thing behind the two of us and start clean, but by "start clean", I don't mean, start from scratch. There is far too much valuable information gotten from that debate. I think that this should be our "itinerary":
# Decide on a governance and leadership committee;
# Decide what to do about the previous material (whether it be to leave it as is, vote on whether to include it in future discussions or not, or go clean); and
# Start new discussion.
Are you willing to accept these as the starting point for all of this? --J@red [T]/[+] 02:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to agree with most of what you said. Maybe if you could set up[ a subpage to the conventions page where we could do our brainstorming, that'd be good. And as for my "gevernance" thing, all I meant was that we need some basic guidelines, whether it be from existing rules or actual people. --J@red [T]/[+] 03:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest archiving the old Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics/Olympic conventions stuff and using that page for the brainstorming Sue Anne suggests.  That brainstorming might include pulling some relevant stuff out of that archive (and some out of the already archived "votes" as well).  Gene Nygaard 13:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Support - the archiving idea - so it is still there and we can have a clear brainstorming forum. I suggest that the first topic should be the idea of 'governance' or how this thing should work. i.e. how it relates to wider Wikipedia policies, procedures, agreements etc. Personally I see this working as an arena defining an agreed way of working amongst ourselves. If we can then persuade others then well and good. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 13:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that the information that has a clear and obvious consensus should be archived and only touched upon in new debates, and anything that is if-fy or has no consensus should be archived and a new debate should be started but it should include some of the points/opinions in the old debates. Opinions? --J@red [T]/[+] 20:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ground rules

message: I went through the 2006 Winter Olympics individual sports pages, and formatted rankings so that in the athlete cells, they had the country flag of the winner first, then the name of the winner (linked) and then the IOC acronym for the country in parentheses and linked to the page for that country for the 2006 Olympics. For example, from the Alpine skiing page: 
Medal 	Athlete                 	Time
Gold  	Antoine Dénériaz (FRA)  	1:48.80
Silver	Michael Walchhofer (AUT)	1:49.52
Bronze	Bruno Kernen (SUI)      	1:49.82
I was wondering if some people could help me do the same for past years, such as the 2004 Summer Olympics. The same practice is also now being implemented on the 2006 Commonwealth Games. 
Jfingers88 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now here's where it get's a bit if-fy; I do support the way you are doing this, but did you first look at this Wikiproject. If you go here, you will see that this is the way set out by the WikiP. I don't think you should be going out and arbitrarily changing everyhting just yet. Maybe wait and see other people's opinions. I would support it because it definitely looks good, its just that it is against what was set out by this WP and any of your edits could easily be reverted. --J@red [T]/[+] 02:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice that afterwards, but it seems that my way of doing things is both catching on and, if I may be a bit arrogant, a little better than the current way. Can I propose a change of policy? Jfingers88 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please use nation names rather than the esoteric codes.  A separate column for "Nation" makes the whole thing much easier to read and more understandable for those who do not have all 200+ codes memorized.  Each nation should be linked only once per section for readability. And please please please do not delete column headers but only change a portion of the rows to fit the new number of headings. -- Jonel | Speak 14:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand why you say that, but you should be able to get to country refered to by the link provided (assuming it is of course) and the code actually provides for a formal removal of ambiguity. These are the ISO codes used for each national entry and if we used the text which Czech/Czechoslovakia are we refering to, which Macedonia, which Yugoslavia, which version of Germany. The codes are an official designation, also the text for some nations can get quite long. but I do understand and did think the same as you at one time, that is until I started working with the data and understood more of the issues. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 15:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your understanding is as yet incomplete--the codes are not the ISO codes (and if they are, that should be fixed).  They are IOC country codes, and the names are just as much an official designation as the code.  Is the code ANT for Netherlands Antilles or Antigua and Barbuda?  It depends on whether you're talking ISO or IOC.  There's no reason to create that confusion when we can just write Antigua and Barbuda.  Also, in a list with 35 nations (as in the Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics men's individual event), ought we really expect people to click all the links just to find out what nation we're talking about? -- Jonel | Speak 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry slip of the typewriter - I was meaning IOC. This IS the official coding for the olympics, and should be linked to the correct country. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that the stacked table looks much better than the table going horizontally. Especially in a sport like boxing, where you always have two bronze, the horizontal table was a bit of a mess. However, I agree with Jonel that country names should be used instead of country codes. The article should be able to stand on its own without someone having to recognize a IOC code or a flag to know exactly what country someone is from. Sue Anne 19:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Only thing is that is really old hat and has been superceeded on nearly all the Winter pages. This should really be updated to the format as illustrated above. Unless anyone object I will make the change pointing out that it has been mainly used for the Winter Olympics pages. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 08:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It looks like Jonel went for some independent action without regard to consensus.  Are you going to change all of the 2006 Winter articles as well, Jonel? Jfingers88 (I don't want to link more than once to the same page) 21:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I'll reformat the 2006 Winter Olympics (and finish adding the missing results, while I'm at it) and you provide coverage for 1904 at least as complete as I've added for 1900. Deal? -- Jonel | Speak 22:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you missed my hopefully obvious sarcasm. Jfingers88 22:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that a separate medal tables for each event is the best way to go. It is not very confusing and you know just where to look if you only want to see a certain event. --J@red [T]/[+] 02:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty then. I'm working on it right now, so any edits anyone makes I will get rid of when I submit mine. Jfingers88 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just finished. It took a very long time to do them all, but now you can see how, if I may be so humble, fantastic it is now. If you don't like the Contents listed, get rid of it yourself, because it does seem pretty big. Jfingers88 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reformatting 

message: I've noticed a category :Category: Olympic gold medalists around being added to Ian Thorpe, ditto for silver and bronze. I guess it might be useful to add them, the next time, you edit the page about the atheltes you are working on. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olympic medalist category 

message: Can we agree between ourselves what we are using. IOC codes are the standard with Olympics results. Most have been using these codes to date, particularly on the Winter Olympics side. Personally I prefer them for their precision of meaning and as the flag is used as well don't see the need for more text. However the Athletics page above has been rework with country names, and rather than change just change it thought we need to have some agreement as to which (or both) should be used. Oh by the way if the codes are used, the "'country' and the 'season' Olympics" article should be linked to as it is in many places. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 09:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes one other thing on the side of Codes - there always seems to be debates as to what to call a country, even my own. Should it be "Great Britain" "Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "United Kingdom", U"nited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and there are others; the first two of these get most used, particularly in this context. And this is for a basically stable country. Others have not been so lucky. The naming mayhem sourounding Yugoslavia is a case in point. Where does the name Macedonia belong, and where does the name Yugoslavia itself refer. The full Tito governed state or the version post break-up. We need to at least include the official coding ('and' maybe the naming that goes with them that the IOC provide). If the codes are deamed to be insuffient I would strongly advise we use the codes as well. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 20:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Yugoslavia" refers to the National Olympic Committee affiliated with the state calling itself Yugoslavia as a short form at the time.  Thus, in 1948 it was the FPRY, in 1988 it was the SFRY, and in 2000 it was the FRY.  Each time the name of the competing nation was Yugoslavia; each time its code was YUG.  I'm not entirely sure what mayhem you're talking about here.  As for Macedonia, the nomenclature "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is much clearer in establishing what we're talking about than is "MKD".  As for Great Britain (which is the official nomenclature of the IOC, according to the Association of National Olympic Committees and the Official Reports such as, say, 1988 Official Report {p. 157}), unless we're going to start entitling articles "GBR at the Summer Olympics", using the codes isn't going to circumvent those debates. -- Jonel | Speak 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the titles of articles, we shouldn't use the codes, but I think when listing event winners (as seen above in my example), we should have the codes and not the full name. I don't know about your browser, but in Firefox, I can just hover my mouse over either the flag or the link and quite easily figure out to what NOC the link refers, with no clicking involved. Even if you don't like this idea, we should at least change all the links in Olympic event articles to things like United States at the 1996 Summer Olympics instead of just United States. Jfingers88 00:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started changing them to the COUNTRY format. I started on the medal pages, and I have those of 1998, 1996, 1994, and 1992 reformatted. Could other people help out, especially on the non-medal pages? I have a bunch of templates that would be helpful at User:Jfingers88/Olympics Jfingers88 03:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the winter article you mention above - but the Summer one you changed has the name not codes, so is inconsistent. Also with out links. If both could be the same and I agree with you on the use of codes as you can see from my other arguements. I don't think this is going to carry the days though the nice tidy offical coding is likly to give way the potential of the sprawling name use. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page) 14:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the controversy surrounding the issue, I decided not to change the Summer article, even though it is inconsistent with others. Once this is all resolved, I can go back and change one of them. Jfingers88 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: As much as possible, the full name should be used. In the event that the space required to fit the name is too small, or it would look uniformally better with same-length names, (sparingly) use the IOC code, per Jonel. --J@red [T]/[+] 01:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But again I must point out that it is not an official Olympics site, rather it is managed by another company that may very wel pay no attention to how they do abbreviations in the Olympics. → J@red talk+ ubx  20:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  Which site are you talking about? The only sites I see linked to in this thread are the ANOC site and the 1988 OR.  ANOC is an organ of the IOC and the OR is a publication of the IOC, so both of them are about as official as it gets.  Is there some other site to which you refer? -- Jonel | Speak 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, this comment was supposed to be on the next subheading of this talk page. I don't know how it got here... → J@red talk+ ubx  23:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IOC codes or Country names

message: I'm putting this question here as opposed to the  page in order to maximize exposure to it:
In regards to the medal "infobox," I think we need a better policy for the links on the event parameter (e.g. "Team" in the box on the right).  Some of them don't have links.  Some of them have links to the sport during the appropriate Olympic Games.  Some of them have links to the particular events (e.g. 200 metre freestyle).  We should probably have a consensus as to what this parameter should be.  Personally, I think it should always lead to the particular event (even if that event page doesn't exist yet).  What do you guys think?  tiZom(2¢) 19:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with you, but could you post some links to some examples of different ways in which you've seen these tables linked? That'd make it easier for me (and others) to see the way you would like to have it. Thanks! → J@red talk+ ubx  21:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your help, tiZom! I agree that we should try to link to the most specific event, like Men's Downhill in examplke three. The only thing I don't agree with is that the box says "2006 Turin". In my opinion (and from people at the MedalTop discussion page too) it should only read "2006" or whatever year it was. It keeps the width of the box short (god for bid having a "Lillehammer" row) and specifying how it should be keeps them all the same. Plus, if anyone wants to know what games it was, they can just click on the 2006 link to go to the Tunin page. → J@red talk+ ubx  03:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, frankly I don't care. The city may give a different appeal, but having just a plain year makes it deliberate and to the point. But please, someone else chime in! Really, it doesn't matter to me, as long as they are all the same. Don't sweat it! Haha. → J@red talk+ ubx  03:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, I was just talking about the event link.  But you bring up a really good point.  Should that year/city link to the <sport> at the YYYY Olympics?  tiZom(2¢) 01:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its fine as it is, since the name of the event already links to that sport at the X Olympics. If anything, the name of the sport in that second row (Alpine Skiing) should link to the sport at the specific year's Olympics. → J@red  02:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That wouldn't work too well for those who compete in the same sport in multiple Games.  I'd say as-is is good. -- Jonel | Speak 04:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So we agree that the third box is the best?  Do we think that red links are ok then?  Just want to make sure before I go changing things.  tiZom(2¢) 19:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fear not the red links ;). -- Jonel | Speak 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree on number 3. As to red links, they encourage the creation of new articles. Jfingers88 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medal infobox - event links 

message: Template:Olympic Games Roque and others have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Circeus 13:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of several single olympics sports footers 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albert Baumann and many of the shooters in :Category:Shooters at the 1896 Summer Olympics (see the "what links here" on the Albert Baumann deletion page) have been nominated for deletion.  You are invited to comment on the discussion.  Thank you. -- Jonel | Speak 04:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD nomination of several Olympic shooters