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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

Other things that may be added: official opening performed by (usually head of state), bidding process (which cities were in the running to host this celebration).

Highlights may be difficult, since it will often contain a focus on the author's nation. It could be structured a little by adding some formatting such as a day-by-day overview (though that is cumbersome for the early Olympics) or a sport-by-sport overview (adding a 'general issues' for the rest).

Since it is an encyclopedia, I think we should not use 'Summer Olympic Games', but rather Games of the *th Olympiad, which is the official name. All the others should then redirect to that. Similarly, the pages of the individual Games should use the same name. -- user:JHeijmans.

I think after the olympics are done we shoudl start doing the same style for the paralympic games. - fonzy

Altough the first paralympics were in 1952 the first olympic style were in 1960. So It shoudl really start there. - fonzy

Are the Paralympic Games and Special Olympics World Games included in this project? - Kwekubo

---

{{SampleWikiProject}}

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)

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)

Is Skiing going to be called Cross-contry skiing or just Skiing? brandnewbrain 18:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

...

I also feel that it's better to use three columns, putting the (wikified) country name and a small flag in the last column, instead of the 3-letter country codes, which only hard core enthusiasts know all of. brandnewbrain 18:17, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

I made a template for the information in the Olympics articles. Although I'm working on it, maybe others can help me put it on every artcle. Thanks, WB 05:21, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

The "Olympic Torch" item of the template should probably be linked to Olympic Flame#Lighters. I'll adjust the template now, if you see this to be inappropriate, then revert it, please. Cmapm 12:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, I just noticed that your username is similar to mine: <name>, and cmapm. lol

It's also funny to pronounce both of them in English, one after another. lol Cmapm 12:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

The same information tends to be at the top of every page, for example Switzerland at the 2000 Summer Olympics.

Here is the list of things that I think should be part of the template. Please review and let me know if you think of anything else.

• Country Name
• Country Flag
• IOC code
• Number of appearances at the Olympics
• Year of first appearance at the Olympics
• Medal counts - gold, silver, and bronze
• Medal ranking

Sue Anne 09:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds great!

I would add:

• Number of competitors
• Number of sports

As to medal counts and ranking, I kind of like the box in the ==Medals== sections (such as at Switzerland at the 1896 Summer Olympics) for that—not sure how well that would work with a template. Though the box does currently lack ranking, which probably could be fixed easily.

I'd love to see a prototype of the template. -- Jonel | Speak 09:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've used Kenya at the 2000 Summer Olympics as a prototype. I'm not entirely happy with the formatting, but I also didn't like when the "Summer Olympic Appearances" were all one line and really stretched out either. Would love some input. Sue Anne 19:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

With the games about to start, perhaps it would be a good idea to start one? Rmhermen 14:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Is Ice hockey: past olympic medalists useful if cleaned up? Rmhermen 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yeah. 1500, no comma or dot. Try to expand the "m" whenever reasonable, as well. -- Jonel | Speak 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Looking at the intro to articles, it seems like there is a split between the summer and winter Olympic games. The summer games typically start out like this:

The 1976 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the XXI Olympiad, were held in 1976 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

While the Winter games tend to start like this:

The XII Olympic Winter Games were held in 1976 in Innsbruck, Austria.

I personally like the summer format, since it bolds the article title per WP:MOS#Article_titles, starts out with the "common name," and also mentions the official name. I was thinking about changing all of them to the summer-type version, but I wanted to get input first. Any thoughts? E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 00:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a topic that should be debated amongst a lot of people. I think that that is a great idea, and you should go for it. I suggest that you change the winter one to (using your example):

The 1976 Winter Olympics, officially known as the XII Olympic Winter Games, were held in 1976 in Innsbruck, Austria.

As you probably know already, the official name of the winter olympic games is as stated in my example. It's weird how it is different from the summer ones, but that's how it is. Drop me a message on my talk page if you want help doing this, I'd be glad to assist you. -- Jared ^[T]/ _[+] 00:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: With the combined teamwork of Jared and me, all of the Olympics intros now have the standardized form shown above as the "summer example." I think this adds necessary detail and clarity to the beginning of the article. Respond on here if you feel for some reason that these changes should not have been made, and feel free to send me a message if there's any other projects that need assistance/comments. E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I suppose this is a right place to complain about this: [1]. 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)

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)

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)

Good idea! -- Jared ^[T]/ _[+] 12:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, join discussion here. -- Dijxtra 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Since someone has added a tag at Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions claiming that that series of several related pages is a part of this WikiProject, I'd suggest that the participants in this project have a look at it to see if we really want to adopt that bastard child.

It looks like those pages fraught with fraudulent votes and an opinionated page "owner" were originally set up to avoid the strictures of working within this group.

In any case, we should make it clear that none of those so-called "decided" issues are yet the consensus of this WikiProject. Gene Nygaard 13:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Guilty as charged, My thought being that as the project doesn't seem to have much of a profile as yet throughout the Olympics based pages it would be diplomatic to assume no slight initially but to let people know of its existence by using the "notice". Hopefully we can bring all things Olympic back into the fold. Hope this was not too rash an idea. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 13:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Note that Jared had previously claimed on Wikipedia talk:Olympic conventions#What's missing, in this bogus forum? that "this isn't a WikiProject". Gene Nygaard 15:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I know it isn't! I was just "hoping" to bring it into the fold. To a proper WikiProject. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 15:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You know Gene, you do have the right to speak your voice, but you've gone too far. You're putting words into my mouth and I don't like it. My intentions for creating the said page were not so that I could get away from this page (as I never once said anything of the sort) but they were to create a forum where people's opinions could be voiced on specific to pics related to conventions. I didn't know of this Wikiproject until after I made that page anyway. I am astounded that you would say something like that. As for my claim that it isn't a wikiproject, I was blatently refering to the page I set up, as it most certainly isnt one but it is a branch off of this one, where users can specifically target problemous issues. As for the "fradulent vote", you only seem upset that you didn't get your ways in the consensus. I have people to vouch that it is and was successful and I will stand my ground if I have to. -- Jared ^[T]/ _[+] 20:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't put any words in your mouth. What I attributed to you was accurate. My assessment of the reasons for creating the page wasn't attributed to you in any way.

Balderdash! I'm calling you on that fictional account of history, "I didn't know of this Wikiproject until after I made that page anyway."

What do you think I am: totally incompetent? You do know that we have edit histories, don't you.  ::It doesn't take much to look at those histories, and to find out that you had commented here on the WikiProject talk page four days before you created your clandestine forum, trying to avoid this project.

Even if just responding on the talk page itself doesn't make it perfectly clear, we also have the fact that you also took the affirmative step of self-identifying yourself as a participant in this WikiProject four days before you created your little hidden private domain on Wikipedia.

Then there is the claim that "My intentions ... were not so that I could get away from this page..., but ... to create a forum where people's opinions could be voiced ...".

• Pretty strange, then, that there was absolutely no mention of any of the voting you were conducting here on the WikiProject and its talk page, isn't it?
• Even stranger yet that there had been no mention here of the existence of this so-called "forum" here on the WikiProject pages, isn't it?

That ludicrous claim certainly doesn't enhance your credibility.

How about that weirdness on your user page, Jared, where you claim:

• " Olympic Conventions I created this series of debates which will now stand as current Wikipedia policy."

It is not and never will be policy as that term is used in Wikipedia jargon. I'd suggest you start by reading real policy: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I'm reminded of that page every time I log in. Aren't you?

Then you might check out a Wikipedia guideline: Wikipedia:Voting is evil

Then maybe we can continue this discussion. Gene Nygaard 14:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

You're still putting words into my mouth...my intentions were never to get away from this page so don't make it sound that way. Second, I was fairly new to Wiki and I had no idea of the rules/regs., so I didn't know how policy worked or how making portals/Wikiprojects worked. So don't call me on that one either. I never knew of policy, but now I do and I realize what I put on my page was innacurate. I would like to drop this, as it is on a project page. If you still feel you want to harass me, then bring it to your own page. I'm done. -- Jared ^[T]/ _[+] 20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

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

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)

See my comment on the Wikipedia:Olympic conventions page. -- Jared ^[T]/ _[+] 20:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

yeah, i agree with Gene.. i don't see this becoming a problem. Mlm42 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Ground rules

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)

A lot of other ground rules ought to be disucssed here, not so much as to have specific instructions, but to make clear the terms under which these issues might be considered here.

First and foremost, the most important rule should be:

1. User:JP06035/Jared shall not have primary responsibility for interpreting the results of these discussions.

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)

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":

1. Decide on a governance and leadership committee;
2. 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
3. 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)

Sue Anne's comments

1. I think we need to stop with the bickerfest and reference WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.
2. We need to recognize that a lot of good work, prior to the Olympics convention "page", had already been going on to help standardize Olympics pages. Editors like Jonel and others have been doing amazing work.
3. I don't think we need a "governance council" or anything like that. What got us into this mess in the first place was people declaring they had the right to make a decision. WP:Consensus is a really great place to start. If that doesn't seem to be working, then we can discuss an up or down vote.
4. The structure needs to be totally different. There are several main groups of Olympics pages and while certain conventions may apply to more than one (if not all) groups of pages, it may make sense to do things one way on something like the main 2006 Winter Olympics page, but something slightly different on an athlete's page or a XCountry at YYYY Olympics page.
5. To me, it would be beneficial if we all did a brainstorming list. No votes, no real discussion, just a laundry list of everything that anyone thinks need to be standarized amongst the Olympics' pages. This will probably include many of the items that were previously voted on during the previous discussions. There can then be some weeding out and progression.

As an aside, one of the things that irked me from the previous ways in which this discussion was handled were three ideas. One, we need to encourage editors and future editors to get involved in these Olympic pages. For the most part, I have stopped working on pop culture-ish pages to focus on building our Olympics repository. De-valuing someone's work becasue it doesn't follow in lock-step with our "conventions" should be avoided at all costs. Two, existing policy and things like the manual of style are there for a reason. If something we are discussing seems to be headed in a direction that would go against an already existing guideline, we should pay careful consideration to that fact. Finally, no discussion is ever really "closed". While we may choose to archive certain discussions - either with or without a consensus - there has to be the ability for any current or future editor to weigh in on that discussion.

Sue Anne 03:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Rarely have I ever been so steamed up as I am with Template:MedalGold and the whole family discussed at Template talk:MedalTop (Jared's pages as they were when I started with them are a petty annoyance in comparison).

I only noticed this because some bot is going around changing templates because of a change of category names from "Category:Olympic Gold Medalists" to Category:Olympic gold medalists.

Hasn't anybody involved with Olympics on Wikipedia ever even looked at this category and its siblings? If you have, have you found it easy to find what you are looking for? They are useless.

Good grief! All these people are indexed by whatever name appears first in the article name. This is totally contrary to most people categories, indexed by last name. Will at least some of you please go read Wikipedia:Categorization?

That in itself is only the tip of the iceberg, of course. Can you find, for example, swimmer Agnes Kovacs, who won gold in 2000 in Sydney in the 2000 m breaststroke? She's there.

But she's not under "K" where I'd expect her. And she's not under "A" either, the only other halfway reasonable possibility.

The problem is, these categories are not sorted according to the English alphabet. Nor according to anybody else's alphabet, for that matter, even though nobody else's alphabet applies here.

Now go look at Wikipedia:Categorization#Category sorting. It starts out with:

• "the entries are people, in which case sorting by last name is preferable"

and further down points out

• Diacritics are omitted: e.g. Étretat: [[Category:Communes of Seine-Maritime|Etretat]], or: Ål: [[Category:Municipalities of Norway|Al]]
• Ligatures are separated: e.g. Æsir: [[Category:Norse mythology|Aesir]]

Is there any good reason why I should not nominate both the whole family of templates and the whole family of categories for deletion? Any less drastic solutions out there? There should be some way to work around it, but even if we come up with a plan for fixing it, is there anybody willing to volunteer to help go through the entire list of hundreds and hundreds of articles and fix them? — Gene Nygaard 11:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been eyeing that discussion for a while now, and (I guess like I did) the're going off on their own making their own templates and formats. And as you said, that's just the first of it. I can attest to having problems with various users there; not big ones, but good size. I don't think that deleting the category would be too great of an idea, because there is useful info in there somewhere! But a bot can't go and switch the names around to Kovacs, Agnes, can it? It would all have to be by hand and it'd be very difficult. Gene, have you posted anything on that medaltemplate page regarding this matter? -- J @ red ^[T]/ _[+] 12:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem, there are easier ways to fix it. Remove the category from the template, and post a message to the talk page saying "Please add the category manually to individual pages with a proper sort key". Takes 10 seconds, and your problem is addressed. Yeah, it'll take time for people to put all the athletes back in the categories, but this is still a far simpler and less drastic fix than going into hysterics and talking about deleting useful templates. (addendum - see Hanni Wenzel, he's sorted properly) -- Jonel | Speak 12:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind, something along those lines, rather than deleting the whole template. Deleting the template would be a last resort, but I though that might get people's attention here. I was thinking maybe adding a parameter to the template so that the person adding the template could add a sort key. But some other templates must have done that, and too many articles using them end up being sorted under the "{" character when that parameter isn't filled in. I like your idea of just leaving categories out of the template entirely better.

And of course, as you point out, removing the category from the template depopulates the categories, and they'd have to be repopulated by that manual addition of categories. That's where we need volunteers willing to do the work, and suggestions on how best to do it, such as using "what links here" for the templates to find articles needing to be added (but we won't have an indication there of which ones have already been done). Does anybody have any better ideas for that? Gene Nygaard 13:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not overly familiar with AWB, but perhaps it might be helpful in this? -- Jonel | Speak 15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, Gene, your post on my talk page was incredibly un-civil. Please don't do that again. Second of all, the categories are quite useful IMO, and in fact their super-category already existed but didn't have the subcategories (Olympic medalists by medal existed, but not these three subs). This is a relatively simple fix. I set it up in the current way back when I did to get the categories created, but we can easily go through and replace the current system with a template with a parameter. I'll try and figure out how to set up such a template, and get right on it. Please be Civil next time. Staxringold 15:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Basically we need to figure out how add in wiki-code a settable parameter to the three templates that when not set reverts to WikiProject Olympics/Archive 1 so the articles can remain at least sorted by first name while working. Staxringold 15:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem is that if this isn't done by the one adding the template, many users won't know how to fix it when the category listing doesn't appear with the other categories at the bottom of the page.

I like Jonel's suggestion better. Do it manually. Go ahead and work out how you would do it with parameters, but I'd suggest discussing it here first to see whether there is agreement on that being the way to go or not. Gene Nygaard 15:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Wopuld there be any way to do it with AWB, because if there is, I could do it (as long as I dont have to type a lot!). I can't think of a way to do it with that, though. -- J @ red ^[T]/ _[+] 15:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is. All we have to do is figure out how to add in the parameter I mentioned. Once we have that, it's just a matter of generating a list of "What links here" in AWB to the three templates. The only typing would be adding |Phelps, Michael onto the template, or whatever. Staxringold 15:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[back to margin] One other very important thing to consider if you do use parameters:

Templates such as Template:MedalGold are intended to be able to be used several times within one article.

If you parameterize the indexing, do you know what happens if the person adding this template for the 1988 Winter Olympics doesn't enter the parameter the same way as the person adding the template for the 1994 Winter Olympics? Only one of them gets used, and I don't even know which one.

Or, what happens if in addition to the template, somebody also adds Category:Olympic gold medalists in the categories listing. If the sort keys are different then, which one gets used?

I think that's just one more reason to do it manually, not as part of the template. Gene Nygaard 15:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine let's do it manually. Delete the cat from the templates and we can start AWBing. Staxringold 15:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the category should be deleted from the template, but other than that the templates are a very good thing. Before the medal template was added, each time an Olympic athlete's page was created there was a mishmash of how people were doing the medal tables. Also, Jared, the medal templates pre-date the Olympics convention page. It was actually funny because both Tomtheman and Jonel created the same sort of template at the same time. Jonel has been great about creating templates and tools to build these Olympic pages. Claiming that he was somehow renegade in creating the medal templates is unfair. Sue Anne 20:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me make it clear that I don't have any complaints about the templates other than their use for adding categories. The categories will also be much more useful if they can be normally indexed. Gene Nygaard 23:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds great, manual indexing it is, AWB ahoy! I'd just ask again that you review WP:CIVIL, Gene, as your talk page appears littered with moments of incivility. Staxringold 05:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Jfing ers 88 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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? Jfing ers 88 03:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It looks like Jonel went for some independent action without regard to consensus. [2] 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)

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)

Perhaps you missed my hopefully obvious sarcasm. Jfing ers 88 22:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Another possible reformatting: On Speed skating at the 2006 Winter Olympics, the events are divided up with a separate medal table for each with the different rankings on the left column and the names and times (scores) in the main body of the table. Compare this to Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics, which just looks like a giant jumbled mess. Shouldn't it be the more organized and succinct way laid out on the Speed skating page? It would much improve the quality of such articles. Jfing ers 88 02:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Alrighty then. I'm working on it right now, so any edits anyone makes I will get rid of when I submit mine. Jfing ers 88 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Jfing ers 88 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Names. Because " ASA" would send me scrambling for my list of IOC country codes. And I recognize a great number more flags and IOC codes than the average reader. Requiring people to click links to find out what nation we're talking is unreasonable, especially since most events have large numbers of nations represented. Using the names also avoids confusion with ISO codes. The IOC national names are just as precise as the codes (we should use the official names for the NOCs found at the ANOC page. -- Jonel | Speak 14:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• The other option is to use both [i.e. (ASA) | American Samoa |] leaving what is there in most places just adding an extra column for the nation. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 15:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• Names. I really like the way the Athletics at the 1996 Summer Olympics page turned out. Sue Anne 18:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

"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)

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. Jfing ers 88 00:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've started changing them to the [[COUNTRY at the YEAR Summer/Winter Olympics|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 Jfing ers 88 03:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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. Jfing ers 88 20:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

:::::::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)

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)

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)

What is the proper capitalization for particular event pages? I'm noticing that more recent games, it will be something like Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 200 metre Freestyle, where the Freestyle is capitalized. However, earlier games are lower-case: Swimming at the 1900 Summer Olympics - Men's 200 metre freestyle. Personally, I like the capitalized version, but that doesn't really matter if it's not per WP guidelines. What is the standard on this? tiZom _(2¢) 05:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been creating them in lower-case per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Also, check the IOC results database--they don't even capitalize freestyle in the event name. If they did, I suppose a case could be made for "200 metre Freestyle" being a proper noun as the name of the event, but they don't. -- Jonel | Speak 13:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Good to know! I'll see if I can move them all. tiZom _(2¢) 14:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that lowercase is and looks better. I also think, though, that the page should be Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 200m freestyle with the unit right next to the number. But that's opening another can of worms... Jared 14:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps 200m or 200 m would be better than 200 metre to prevent Anglo-American controversies, especially since I'm not sure which it should be given that there would be pages for both the United States that include 200 meter and for Great Britain that would include 200 metre, and others that would vacillate between the two. Jfing ers 88 17:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there are so many of the pages already set up with "x metre" as a title. There's really not an easy way to switch them all. Just a thought though, how does the IOC refer to them? tiZom _(2¢) 04:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Olympics.org pages, it shows ----m, like 1500m. There is no space. Even on a google search, if you put in 1500 m, this is what comes up:

Did you mean: IOC + 1500m

It's obvious that most sources, regardless of and SI standards (if there are such a thing) will use the number directly followed by the unit abbreviation. →  J @ red  ^{talk +} _ubx  13:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And on the Athens2004 site, the IOC uses "100 m", with the space. But the IOC's inconsistent usage doesn't really matter, because the Wikipedia MoS is quite explicit in that "The reader should see a space between the value and the unit symbol" and that editors should "[s]pell out source units in text" ( WP:MOSNUM#Units). If you don't like that, take up it on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). --

It has been taken up there, and no one there seemed to help. I just don't think that a policy such as MOSNUM should be used acrosss such a broad bredth of pages! If everything in the world used what MOSNUM sets out, then it'd be great, but many things are different, so the policy should reflect that. We shouldn't change the way everyone else does things to make WP "standard"; we should change WP standards to make things like everyone else! →  J @ red  ^{talk +} _ubx  16:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree there. If a Wiki-policy shouldn't be used all across wiki, then why should an Olympic policy be used all across the Olympic pages? Why don't we each just do different pages the way we each want, regardless of how that looks. Answer: Because it's good to have standards, so things look the same. We want all the Olympic pages to answer to the same standards. By the same measure, we want all Wiki pages to answer to the same standards. And one of those is a standard method of writing numbers and units. So wherever Wiki has the standards setup already, we should definitely use them. Maelwys 17:42, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot more than that, too:

• The IOC never states this to be a rule to be followed.

• IOC usage is inconsistent, with many pages on the olympic.org site using emasurements such as "100 m" with a space. [3]

• NIST specifies as a general rule that measurements shall be written with a space between the number and the symbol. [4] This NIST publication has broad credibility, inside and outside the United States, and is used far beyond its primary purpose as a house rule just as the Chicago Manual of Style has influence far beyond the University of Chicago Press usage. (Its influence comes from it being carefully and well written and in accordance with generally acceptable rules, helped along by the fact that it is readily available, online in both html and pdf versions, and even as a free printed copy.)
• National Physical Laboratory, UK specifies as a general rule that measurements shall be written with a space between the number and the symbol. [5] NPL also refers readers to the NIST SP811 mentioned above for more detailed rules.
• Our house rules at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) specify that measurements shall be written with a space between the number and the symbol.
• BIPM consistently follows this rule in its SI brochure and elsewhere on bipm.org, though it doesn't explicitly state it as a rule to be followed. [6]
• I don't have the ISO 31 Standard, but I think I have seen others cite it as expressing this rule as well. Can anyone verify that?

It is only fairly recently that this has come to be explicitly specified as a general rule. There remains significant—but minority—noncompliance with it, certainly. But the general trend is for increasing adherence to this rule. It is good for us to follow that as our house rules. Gene Nygaard 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Plus, it doesn't deal merely with the esthetics, with what looks good to any particular individual. My personal biggest complaint is that omitting the space screws up the usefulness of many search engine searches. Gene Nygaard 18:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Gene on this. Especially on following our own house rules where possible. Rich Farmbrough 20:10 26 March 2006 (UTC).

Every source you listed, though, Gene, had nothing to do with Olympics at all. Do you think that NIST or BIPM thought of the Olympics when they created their conventions? Of course not. I agree that our house rules should apply to most articles, but if there is a case when something specifically implies that it should be one way, then we have to adjust the policy. Would you like to see the official list of events for various sports on the Olympic.org website? Here are three...EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS NO SPACE WHEN THE ABBREVIATED EVENT NAME IS WRITTEN OUT. It's all right here in black (blue) and white!

• • Athletics;
  • Biathlon; and
  • Swimming.

Need I show more? →  J @ red  ^{talk +} _ubx  21:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

And here's three examples of it the other way -

• • • Athletics;
    • Swimming; and
    • Track and Road.

Point being, we can't use the Olympics event as the be-all/end-all of setting rules. They're inconsistant within themselves. Our goal should be to be better than that, and to be entirely consistant within all of Wiki. And that means going by what's already been decided within the Wiki standards. Maelwys 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, BIPM and NIST and ISO do take that into consideration. The interdisciplinary nature of SI is as important as its international nature.

As has already been pointed out by me, and again by Maelwys, the IOC not only does not state it as a rule but also does not consistently follow any rule in this regard. Gene Nygaard 22:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you notice, though, that the Athens site is not even managed by Olympic.org? It is managed by OTEnet, which is based in Greece. The Greeks probably use the method with the space, which we do not use. The stuff that I presented came from the IOC, which specifically states in its disclaimer that the page is the sole property of them. If they use the no space method, then so should we. The Athens site is in no was affiliated with the IOC site operators. →  J @ red  ^{talk +} _ubx  23:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So what's your point? That whatever little pockets of consistency there are result from the idiosyncrasies of individual webmasters? Not much to go by, is it?

They also use a comma decimal point. [7]

They also use spellings such as "programme" and "organisation".

What you haven't shown is anywhere where they have said that we should do the same in any of these situations, nor anything that would give them any say-so in what we do use in any case.

Furthermore, it isn't just the Athens sites; here are some from the http://www.olympic.org/uk/ site which do use the space:

• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

Here are some with some each way:

• [11]
• [12]

But still, nothing even remotely presuming to prescribe either usage. Contrast that with the standards organizations which do prescribe the space, and with our own house rules which do the same. Gene Nygaard 23:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All of your sources, minus the boxing one (which was probably just a typo) are not official events pages, rather they are either photo galleries and snippets of info. The sources I gave showed the EXACT NAMES OF THE EVENTS, which should be on WP what they are there. You can't change the name of an event. It is what it is. Now regarding the "set in stone: you must never use the space", I havn't yet found anything. I've tried to e-mail the IOC, but for a few months now its said: "Please try again after the olympics". When I get through to them, though, I'll tell you. →  J @ red  ^{talk +} _ubx  01:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that barring an extreme consensus to the contrary, established Wikipedia policies should be followed. If there is an extreme consensus to change, than it should be addressed within that policy - not just on the Olympics pages. Also, if we're looking at official sites the Torino 2006 site uses a space and then the abbreviation. Sue Anne 03:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Was this the thread that was asked about on the talk page for MoS (dates and numbers)? If so, here's the view of an outsider.

Context, people, context! This isn't science, or physics, or chemistry! SI, or ISO 31 or the guidelines that BIPM or NIST provide weren't necessarily designed for use here. It must be considered if they are appropriate to be used in this context.

In the same way, it doesn't really matter that much how the IOC puts it, either. Ultimately, 200m and 200 m and 200 metre and arguably even 200 Metre are the same thing! This issue is relatively arbitrary.

For a title (emphasis title), however, "200 m Freestyle" looks strange to me because of the freestanding "m". "200 Metre" isn't something I'm used to seeing but could be considered technically correct. I would recommend choosing between "200m Freestyle" and "200 metre Freestyle". Both are understandable, which one is arbitrary. Neonumbers 10:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting this question here as opposed to the {{ MedalTop}} page in order to maximize exposure to it:

Olympic medal record
Men's Ice Hockey
	1956 Cortina d'Ampezzo	Team

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)

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)

Certainly. The boxes on the right were pulled from the following athlete pages:

Olympic medal record
Men's athletics
	2004	Hammer throw

• Eşref Apak (link is to Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics)

Olympic medal record
Men's Alpine Skiing
	2006 Turin	Slalom

• Reinfried Herbst (link is to Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics#Slalom)

Olympic medal record
Men's Alpine Skiing
	2006 Turin	Downhill

• Antoine Dénériaz (link is to Alpine skiing at the 2006 Winter Olympics - Men's Downhill

Olympic medal record
Men's Swimming
	1996	200 metre butterfly

• Scott Goodman (no link)

What I'd like to do is make everything like the third one. Sure there will be some red links, but this is a project that some of us are taking on - making pages for all the events. There had been a suggestion before to make the link as descriptive as possible (i.e. go with the event page if there is one, but if not, do the sport page), which I think is great. But I do think this will cause a lot of headaches down the line. And here we have a chance to complete this task in an orderly fashion, as opposed to continually working on it in pieces. What do you guys think? tiZom _(2¢) 03:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Oh Jared, don't do that to me! I've been using AWB to change them all to the year and city! :oP I've gotten several hundred of them down, and to be honest, I've only seen two or three cases where it forced a second line. And it doesn't look terrible at all. And a lot of people (myself included) feel like this gives a really nice perspective to the infobox, as it's much easier to match up city names than years in one's mind. But this is a different discussion, and should probably be under a separate heading if we decide to continue it. :o) tiZom _(2¢)

I'd like to get some more input on the links from others, if that's possible. Thanks guys! tiZom _(2¢) 03:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Hello. This is the first chance I've had all day to actually respond to this, and I've been itching to do it but work is crazy right now. Here are my thoughts in some sort of order ...

1. {{ MedalSport}} - I have a strong opinion on this one that it should link to the Olympic page if one exists. Instead of linking to Alpine skiing, it should link to Alpine skiing at the Winter Olympics.
2. {{ MedalGold}}, etc.
   1. It should be year and city. I read the discussion on the {{ MedalTop}} talk page that most people thought the city should be included.
   2. The link should be to the main Olympics game page. 2006 Turin should link to 2006 Winter Olympics.
   3. I agree that the third cell should be linked to the specific event page. I don't like red links, but I do understand your thinking Tom.

That's where I'm at in this discussion. Sue Anne 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the third example is best. My initial expectation was for the "2006 Turin" link to go to "<sport> at the 2006 Winter Olympics" instead of the more general "2006 Winter Olympics" page, but the event link takes you to a sport-specific page. Either way is good, I think. The most important thing is that we make all of these athlete pages use a common link style!! Andrwsc 20:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fear not the red links ;). -- Jonel | Speak 20:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree on number 3. As to red links, they encourage the creation of new articles. Jfing ers 88 02:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)