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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

For the past month, several editors have raised concerns about certain phrases such as "Olympic sport" and "Olympic recognized sport". talk section talk section In addition, a new category was recently created, Category:Olympic recognised sports. We have now received guidance from the Legal Department of the International Olympic Committee which states,

Netball is a sport governed by the International Federation of Netball Associations

(IFNA) which is recognised by the IOC. The IOC doesn't recognise sports as such,

but the Federation which governs such sport.

The propositions of "Olympic sport" or "Olympic recognised sport" are inaccurate.

What, if anything, should we do with this guidance? Can this WikiProject develop a consensus nomenclature? We should also note that "Olympic" is a protected trademark. Thanks, Racepacket ( talk) 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You can't trademark a word. Gnevin ( talk) 00:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking you can't (paricularly if the word has been around for a long time and has mountains in Washington State named after it.) But if you have powerful friends in the U.S. Congress or lawmakers in Australia, for example, you can do anything you want. So we have a special law that gives the USOC the right to control a word independent of traditional trademark principles:

[T]he corporation has the exclusive right to use— (4) the words “Olympic”, “Olympiad”, “Citius Altius Fortius”, “Paralympic”, “Paralympiad”, “Pan-American”, “America Espirito Sport Fraternite”, or any combination of those words. 36 U.S.C. § 220506

In the U.S., where the WMF is located, we also have a U.S. Supreme Court case holding that the normal Lanham Act defenses to trademark suits do not apply to this special statute and that at least in the case of the "Gay Olympics" there was no First Amendment right that cut through the USOC's right to control the word "Olympic." Besides the US law quoted above there are similar laws in other countries. For example, Australia has the Olympic Insignia Protection Act 1987 amended by the Olympic Insignia Protection Amendment Act 1994. Racepacket ( talk) 17:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very interested in that quote from the IOC legal department you gave earlier. Do you have a reference to it? And if what you say is true, then I would be in agreement that the term should be changed to something like "IOC recognized sport federations". As a side note, I do feel that you have some type of vendetta against Netball in general and wouldn't be surprised if in fact you asked for the entire deletion of the "Olympic recognized sport" section from the Olympic sport page. I, for one, would like to see that section remain, albeit with the different label I mentioned earlier with clearer language as to what a recognized sport federation means. It must be noted that having a sport federation recognized by the IOC is the first step to being included into the official program and having that list of recognized sport federations on the "Olympic sport" page is important. The IOC has been reviewing the Summer program quite regularly and, as you well know, recently removed Baseball and Softball while adding Rugby and Golf to the 2016 Olympic Games. That means there is the potential for other sports to be added/removed in the future and I think the readers deserve to know which sports are eligible for their inclusion. -- Perakhantu ( talk) 06:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to a question at Talk:1924 Summer Olympics I scanned a few of the early Olympics articles and found basically nothing on the Olympic arts competitions. I personally have very little feeling for how important/respected/well docmented they are but would assume that at least some of the info from (e.g.) Art competitions at the 1924 Summer Olympics should be included in the 1924 Summer Olympics article? Do they for example get mentioned in the official reports - the reports I looked at (available from the LA84 foundation) for 1920 and 1924 were in French (which lets say isn't my strongest language) so it was hard to tell. Is this a subject area that the project is overlooking? Basement12 (T. C) 00:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

They should certainly be mentioned—the reference I used for the 1924 article points to pages 601–612 of the official report (599–610 of the PDF file). But they should not have the same prominence as the sporting events on our articles (e.g. medals not included) as the IOC has retrograded the status of art competitions. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 00:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like we're treading a fine line on giving them undue weight then. Out of interest do you know of a source for the IOC changing the status or is it merely that they omit them from the database of medal winners? It also seems that the modern Olympics articles (e.g. 2008, 2010) completely ignore the corresponding Cultural Olympiads mandated by the Olympic Charter. I would think each should have a small section like the one I've added to 2012? Basement12 (T. C) 11:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The references in the Art competitions at the Olympic Games article point to a decision made at the 1949 IOC meetings in Rome, but after searching the LA84 Foundation archives I haven't found the definitive statement in the Olympic Review section. But there are certainly a few JOH articles and even a book on the topic, so something must be written there. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 16:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Does Template:Women at the Olympics and Paralympics really need to exist? It is only transcluded on to one page and seems to cherry pick articles that the creator thinks are of good quality. Additionally I've raised a number of concerns over material in Netball and the Olympic Movement on the articles talk page, I personally can't see how it ever made it to GA and Women's sport at the Olympics seems to be made up only of text from the Netball article so should the two be merged in some way? Basement12 (T. C) 13:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea for a template, with an unclear criteria for inclusion. Why are not all women's Olympic sports included? Why is a non-Olympic sport included? Please nominate for TfD. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 16:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

My reaction entirely. Nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Women at the Olympics and Paralympics - Basement12 (T. C) 00:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Absurd and useless template, I've raised my concerns over the TfD. I think we need special discussion here to discuss the scope of using term "Olympic recognized sport". -- Bill william compton ^Talk 03:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, folks. I agree the template needs to change somehow- perhaps by a radical restart- but the comments like "absurd" and "terrible" are going too far. There's a way to express your views on the template's usefulness without putting down the good-faith editors who worked on it... and this is not it. Courcelles 04:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello: If you are in the Singapore area, I am hoping to get some people accredited as reporters, for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. Visit Wikinews' project area to submit your name, and be considered for our official bid. -- Zanimum ( 留言) 2010年3月22日 (一) 14:55 (UTC) Just puting a comment so I can date it and get this thread archived by the bot - Basement12 (T. C) 08:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In the vein of getting as much input as possible, I'm requesting help with reviewing the 1952 Winter Olympics article. I am in the final stages of prepping it for a run at FAC and I'd really appreciate any further input the Olympics Community could give. Keep prose, grammar, content, and MOS compliance in mind. No suggestion or fix is too nit picky. Please either make fixes or leave suggestions on the article's talk page and I'll make the corrections. Thank you so much!!! H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the icons from Template:2010 Winter Olympics Calendar per WP:OR and have been reverted , in the previous discussion I was under the impression it was agreed these where invented for wiki , which is not allow and thus they all should be removed? Gnevin ( talk) 12:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion addressed the issue of these images being used as infobox illustrations, not for navigation usage. WP:Original research does not apply here. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't OR or to be more specific WP:OI apply ? Gnevin ( talk) 15:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:No original research#Original images, Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Icons used for table navigation do not "introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 19:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It introduces the idea that these are officially approved IOC representations of these sports instead of something someone just made up. Until I came to the discussion above and this is what I thought. This much like Template:Country_data_Ireland and the made up flags Gnevin ( talk) 22:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a straw man argument. You are projecting your personal interpretation of these images onto a larger group of arbitrary readers. Why would you think they are "official" when there is no caption or text that claims they are? It's not at all like the Ireland example you cite, where user-created images were being used in the same context as real, recognizable flags for every other country. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 23:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

"Why would you think they are "official" when there is no caption or text that claims they are?! Because they in an Encyclopaedia and Encyclopaedias generally don't invent stuff. I can only draw from my experience, I'm not attempting to imply any conclusion or interpretation for a larger group. Gnevin ( talk) 00:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

PS can you point me to any where else on wiki where made up icons are being used so often and prominently on the mainspace ? Gnevin ( talk) 00:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Those images aren't in a gallery of illustrations (i.e. encyclopedic content), they are part of the aesthetic layout of the page. For some examples to answer your question (I'm assuming it wasn't rhetorical):

• is a user-defined icon used on about 14,000 articles to denote an increase in profits, revenue, etc.
• is a user-defined icon used on about 7000 articles to denote a goal scorer
• is a user-defined icon used on a mere 1300 articles (still more than the alpine skier pictogram) to denote an injured player on team rosters

— Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 01:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not much point in the 2 of us going back and forward. Anyone else care to offer an opinion ? Gnevin ( talk) 12:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of the pictograms for use in navboxes etc. I think the only place I've seen them used where they shouldn't be is in infoboxes at the top of some sports/events articles, in those instances the reader might assume that they are official. As for how they conform (or not) to policy the examples given above by Andrwsc make me think that their continued, but controlled use is fine - Basement12 (T. C) 12:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

They are generic icons with wide spread real world usage the up/down icons can be found on most stock market pages, the goals are used by the BBC and FIFA to name a few, the red cross is similar. To me they are like File:Gaelic_football_pitch_diagram.svg a wiki creation yes but based on a well known idea. Where as the pictograms are not generic, it's a wiki an orginal creation to avoid copright Gnevin ( talk) 15:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. Unique pictograms have been used since the 1964 Games (see http://olympic-museum.de/#pictograms), but they are all similar variations on a theme when you compare them closely. Similar to your BBC example, I offer the Yahoo Sports and Sports Illustrated websites, each with their own pictograms. Therefore, this isn't the case where there is one official set of pictograms, and the Wikipedia set created by Parutakupiu is an attempt to circumvent copyright. Instead, they are just one of many sets of sport pictograms available, alongside "official" Olympic organizing committee creations and other media creations, but free for use by us. Therefore, these are also generic icons with wide spread real world usage ... a wiki creation yes but based on a well known idea. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 16:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well that puts that to bed, clearly OI doesn't apply. This is resolved Gnevin ( talk) 17:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, we are looking for editors that might be interested in working on this project. If you are interested please join and list your name here. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 02:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that {{ flag}} and {{ flagicon}} have been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_June_11. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Didrikson.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.94.47.63 ( talk) 07:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

An IP user is adding a section on a discovery of plastic explosives during the Games to 2004 Summer Olympics with the claim that their source is "the archives of the Hellenic N.I.S." and "it is possible to contact the department of Interpol in Athens, or apply to the Ministry of Citizens Protection to verify the validity of the section". A quick search of news and the web reveals no mention of this so I've reverted a couple of times and left a note about WP:V at the article's talk page and at the talk page of the last IP address to add the section (not sure if they'll see it as the changes have come from more than 1 IP). Anyway the point is I've reverted a couple of times and don't want to invoke 3RR, as it isn't clear vandalism, so I'd appreciate it if someone else could keep an eye on things and have a go at reasoning with/assisting the IP if needed. Thanks - Basement12 (T. C) 20:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

is it really necessary to have these pages with current format ? these pages are already very big, and it's just the start of the qualification period ! in other sports, we have many different ways to qualify but in Athletics and Swimming it's very simple. I think only a summary + Qualification standards are enough. Mohsen1248 ( talk) 10:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll get started on Venues of the 2018 Winter Olympics and Paralympics if I can find adequate sourcing. Are there generally good places to look regarding venues? NativeForeigner ^Talk/ _Contribs 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Images only.

About slope of Yongpyeong resort. I don't know which slope will be used for the Olympics.

Slope map of phoenixpark.

Jungbong district will be constructed, but there are some problems about environment.

Alpensia Sliding Centre will be consructed. Local media has a little information, neither. Realidad y Illusion ( talk) 13:25, 9 July 2011 ( KST)

+ [1] Please refer the candidate file about venues of the Games. Realidad y Illusion ( talk) 13:28, 9 July 2011 ( KST)

According to this source [2] Djibouti did not compete at the 2004 Olympics, and the country page indicates it did but the events listed are either false or they didn't start. Do we remove Djibouti from the list of nations at the 2004 Games? Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 03:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about that. Here is a source from Yahoo Sports that lists Djibouti: [3]. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

On the wikipedia article the events listed do not show any Djibouti athletes and the reference I provided indicated Djibouti didn't compete. I am thinking this is sort of like the Virgin Islands at the 2006 Winter Olympics in which the country sent athletes but they never competed. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 21:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It is obscure and there isn't a lot online to get a definitive answer. I would hesitate to remove even though I rely heavily on Sports Reference in my articles. You may be right in comparing its involvement to the Virgin Islands. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to this source [4] which is the official report Djibouti had only one not two athletes registered to compete and the event listed for that athlete was the 800m. However the results from the same source indicate no athlete from Djibouti competed in the 800m heats, thus proving Djibouti did not compete. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 21:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok but if the athlete was registered to compete and then withdrew I would say that the country warrants inclusion in the list of participating nations. That's my opinion though. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too, but I think the article should be redirected the 2004 Olympics article explaining the situation, like ISV and the 2006 Olympics. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 21:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

if you ask me, I'm agree with Intoronto1125 but I think it's better to make a page for Virgin Islands at the 2006 Winter Olympics ! because that athelete listed in the official report as DNS, it's a little different. (Sports Reference doesn't recognize DNS) BTW Djibouti had 2 non-participating runners (see page 13 in official athletics report). Mohsen1248 ( talk) 23:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 23:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Per previous discussion, we agreed that it would be undue weight to have a complete article for a nation that did not compete. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 00:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on the 1960 Winter Olympics and found out that Greece missed these Games. I think it was the only Games Greece has missed. My question is why did they skip these Games? I can't find an answer and since Greece always plays a key role in the Opening and Closing Ceremonies I'd like to put something in the article on it. Anyone have a source that explains their absence? Thanks. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this source [5], it says Greece did indeed compete. I am guessing they sent one athlete and they got injured before competing, sort of like what happened to the Virgin Islands in 2006. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 18:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see in that source where it says that Greece participated. I see where it says there was a "Greek Delegation", but I don't think that is an accurate description of their "involvement". There was a Greek standard bearer noted on page 53 of the Official report [6], but no Greek athletes participated. Sports-Reference has the list of Olympics Greece participated in [7] but 1960 Winter Games is omitted. My guess is that due to the traditional place of Greece at the head of the Parade of Nations, someone walked in with the Greek flag but no athletes were present. It's odd and I can't figure out why Greece didn't participate. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 18:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. May I suggest e-mailing the Greek Olympic committee? Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 18:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe someone at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece would be able to locate some Greek-language sources. - Darwinek ( talk) 19:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Both excellent ideas, thank you. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The issue with e-mailing might is you have to probably translate it into Greek. I hope you find what you are looking for! Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 21:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Which logo is the correct one? This one or the one located at the 2014 Winter Olympics page? Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 15:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The one at the 2014 WO page, as neither the Russian Olympics Committee ( [8]) nor the Sochi 2014 ( [9]) website mention that first logo. — Bill william compton ^Talk 17:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what the other logo is for? Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, but it may be a calligraphic piece of some artist, like many were released before Beijing 2008. — Bill william compton ^Talk 02:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Just some design artist who made his own logo for fun and put it on line. With some success it seems. Hektor ( talk) 08:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The template {{ times}} is now available, to display a typographically correct 'times' character (× in HTML); for eample 4{{times}}100m relay renders as 4×100m relay. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay great! Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 23:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Much better to type the Unicode character directly into the wiki markup. On a Windows keyboard, type Alt+0215 to get ×. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 20:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Better for you, perhaps; but not as easy for many of our editors to remember. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Andrwsc. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 23:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For other editors, clicking on the little × beneath the edit window is still a better solution than transcluding a template. See Help:Entering special characters. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 04:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

How do people who can't use a mouse do that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, they can use either the "Alt code or Option key" method or the "HTML character reference" method described on the help page. There are several ways to skin this cat, but template transclusion is the least useful of those ways. In any case, it is pointless to debate this on the Olympic project talk page; best to be discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 August 8#Template:Times. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 14:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Then my response to him applies also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Sochi 2014 - Logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The background of this is that the nominator, Tbhotch. ^™, wanted to put the logo on Commons because he feels it is not original. I opposed that because it is the opinion of the legal counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation that this logo passes the threshold of originality. Plus there was a complaint letter from the IOC when the file was briefly on Commons. So now in order to make his point, Tbhotch. ^™ has nominated it for deletion. Hektor ( talk) 08:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 08:32, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

2011-09-14 i have rephrased the original distinction of names and lists from titles of biographies.

Should participants in sports events be named or listed by their use names at the time of the event? For example, should Babe Didriksen (Zaharias) always be named or listed as Babe Didriksen regarding a time in her life when she used that name? (Frankly I am surprised that her biography is " Babe Zaharias" but that is another matter, titling biographies.)

P.S. First I checked the one-time mother and sister projects Sports and Sports Results, which are named here. -- P64 ( talk) 19:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Commonsense tells you that it should be the name which they competed under at the time. As that is what the source reflects. Wikipedia is not Original Researching which putting different names down technically is. Globalwheels ( talk) 19:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, it's possible to determine that two names refer to the same person without proscribed original research. Indeed, that's essential in order to use in one article two sources that use two different names!

Any wikipeditor who simply transcribes names will get contemporary names from contemporary sources but anachronistic names from any later sources that have used anachronistic names. -- P64 ( talk) 17:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

According to some reports the All Africa Games are being used as a qualification tournament for some sports, however some other reports are saying since the All Africa Games are not being run by the NOC's that they are not a qualification tournament. My question is which is it. Intoronto1125 Talk Contributions 20:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The only sports to use the Africa Games as qualifiers were Sprint Canoeing and Table Tennis. Sprint Canoeing actually had separate events and seems to be recognized by the ICF. The same can be said for the ITTF. I guess athletes could qualify in athletics and swimming as well, but no swimmer was able to reach the OQT while the IAAF has yet to recognize the results of athletes that reached the A and B standard, though none of those athlete quotas will be added until they appear on the IAAF lists. JoshMartini007 ( talk) 03:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The Olympic Games database from Sports Reference has been a major source of data and references in Olympics-related lists, many of them currently featured on Wikipedia. The standard reference format we've been using — Last name, First name. "Title of page". Olympics at Sports-Reference.com. Sports Reference LLC. Retrieved (Date) — was as suggested by one of the website authors.

However, during a FLC, a reviewer commented that the formatting ought to be simplified — Last name, First name. "Title of page". Olympics. Sports Reference. Retrieved (Date). At first, I did not see any reason for that, since we are following the original author's request for referencing format... but then his arguments were not entirely unjustified and deserved some thought. That's why I decided to address this situation to this project: to have some more opinions and discuss a change that, if carried through, would affect hundreds of pages. Parutakupiu ( talk) 15:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with the formatting suggested by the reviewer, as the organisation name seems like a publisher, not a unique aspect of the title of the page. You won't have "Sam Stosur wins an open at Sydney Morning Herald" and including the name isn't a standard part of most citation formats like MLA and APA. -- User:LauraHale

Many (all) of the Olympic medal tables use the image File:Sort none.gif to describe how to sort the columns. Since the 1.18 update that icon has changed so it doesn't make sense. As sorting is now simpler and more obvious perhaps the whole sentence can go. violet/riga  _^[talk] 17:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Parutakupiu ( talk) 18:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe a winner of Olympic medals has been omitted from the year of 1900 - the name is Harold Segerson Mahony Born in Edinburgh 1867 and stayed in Charlotte Square Edinburgh. I do believe he won the Silver Medal in the men's single tennis Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).event and a bronze in the doubles event.

Please see "The Independent" article of the 31st. January 2010 which will help to substantiate my views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.213.203 ( talk) 14:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I just created the template (below) and associated articles detailing each nation's flag bearers.

I'm not going to go through adding the sports to each list but I did for the GBR one as an example. violet/riga  _^[talk] 13:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no award listing for 2005, But it is recorded elsewhere that Shirley Babashoff was given the award in 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.87.7 ( talk) 06:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know which country wears these colours? John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. MER-C 12:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What should be the title of an article about any National Olympic Committee? Should it be in native language or in English? Like for Germany we've Deutscher Olympischer Sportbund and for France it's French Olympic Committee (a wrong translation of Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français). IMHO there must have been some convention. — Bill william compton ^Talk 13:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is when the native language do not use the Latin alphabet... It would be better to use English for all. Felipe Menegaz 07:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2020 bid articles all have "See also" sections which link to other bid articles, in addition to having a navigation box which already serves this function. WP:SEEALSO says this double-linking should not be allowed as a general rule, but MusicGeek101 who has insisted on keeping the "See also" sections argues that having the section allows users to navigate more easily.

I think the navigation boxes serve their purpose well enough and am here to seek consensus on this. — Yk Yk Yk   talk ~  contrib 20:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There was no real discussion here with other members about removing the see also section. Just now I went to one of the bid pages and tried to get to another bid page and got confused on how to get there because of this removal. Once again, I maintain my position that removing the see also section makes it more difficult to navigate the pages. If I just had an issue getting from one page to the next, surely someone who is less tech savvy than me would struggle. I am fine with removing the see also section once the bidding process is over and a host city is elected. At the time being, people are interested in this bidding process. I doubt they care about who bid for 2012 or even 2016 for that matter. My stance is that I am against removal of the see also section. I think for a change to be made, that we would need more than two people discussing this (one for, one against). Secondly, I created four out of the six articles on the bids. I created the pages for the Baku, Doha, Madrid and Tokyo bids. My comittment to the cause is real. I was actually waiting for someone else to come around and start the articles but once the Sept 1 bid deadline came I figured I would do it and in doing so I wanted consistency and I wanted pages which were easy to read and navigate. Wikipedia should not be complicated. Its great that people can access a free encyclopedia on the internet. If they can get something for free then we should still do our best to make sure the pages are easy to read and navigate. -- MusicGeek101 ( talk) 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason the section should be removed for now is because it conforms to guidelines ( WP:SEEALSO). You are proposing an exception to the rule which puts the burden on you to seek others in favor. Secondly, I don't doubt the value of your contributions to the real content of the articles (although you do not WP:OWN articles) and this has nothing to do with targeting you. I know, it sucks to be in a petty argument over a small section, but guidelines exist for a reason -- if anyone can flout them that what's the point of having them?

This navbox Template:Bids for the 2020 Summer Olympics already serves its purpose of allowing users to navigate. So far, in the project as a whole, navboxes are the standard navigation tool for similar topics and no one has complained, even for older Olympic bids. I don't see why this case is special. — Yk Yk Yk   talk ~  contrib 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are any Australians lurking around, Wikimedians to the Games is a collaboration drive to improve Australian Paralympic articles, with the most active contributors having an opportunity to go attend the Paralympic Games and to cover the Games behind the scenes with a press pass. The top two contributors will get their airfare and accommodation paid for. :) The drive official starts on 10 January 2012. -- LauraHale ( talk) 09:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello if women's sports fascinate you: WikiProject Women's sport and Portal:Women's sport, -- Cordialement féministe ♀ Cordially feminist Geneviève ( talk) 23:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Olympics will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in the Olympics. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch ( talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the information at WP:NOLYMPICS, but how far do we go in considering an athlete notable? Take Paul Côté for example; someone who won one bronze medal with only a stub. Is this really necessary? Wouldn't it be sufficient to just reference him in the relevant medal summary? — JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 21:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

An article about a notable subject with a stub article can always be expanded if some one takes an interest in the topic. I know as I've expanded stub articles about 2008 Summer Olympians. In many countries, they interview previous Olympians during current games, which brings additional references. "article is a stub" has zero to do with notability. -- LauraHale ( talk) 23:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Well fine if someone at some point wants to do a whole article on him, just leave it as a redlink at the medal summary... — JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing any reason to have it as a red link. The person is notable. A stub can be expanded at any time. Having a stub page makes it easier for new people to contribute than a red link. If nominated for AFD, guidelines would support it being kept. Why should it be be deleted and left as a red link again? -- LauraHale ( talk) 03:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm not planning on bringing this particular article to WP:AFD. I was just curious as to what the general consensus on this type of person is, in case a similar article does turn up in AfD or AfC. It seems like were it not for the very specific sentence at WP:OLYMPICS, someone like this wouldn't meet general notability requirements for a person or athlete. — JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 05:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The notability policy for Olympic athletes is set because so many cases have shown there is enough to pass WP:GNG that they should be treated that was as the default. Speaking for Australian Olympic competitors, which is my editing area, this is very much true and the sources exist that just making the training squad (not even competing at the games) generally means they have enough information to pass WP:GNG. If an article came up for deletion for an Olympian, I'd vote keep because of this. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the insight, LauraHale. — JmaJeremy ^talk _contribs 06:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Olympic shooting venues has been proposed to be speedy renamed to Category:Olympic shooting ranges ... 65.92.181.184 ( talk) 11:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposal was withdrawn. 65.92.181.184 ( talk) 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! Would it be possible to add a parameter to {{ flagIOC}} that would allow the IOC flag to be displayed over the nation's flag? The parameter would address the issue of the correct representation of Netherlands Antilles athletes. I would think that the change would be similar to the one made at the {{ flagPASO}} template, where, when the template is used, the link will be to the "Netherlands Antilles at the Pan American Games" but the flagicon would display the PASO flag. Thanks! Prayerfortheworld ( talk) 04:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Example of change:   Netherlands Antilles to   Netherlands Antilles, except using the IOC flag instead of the PASO flag. Prayerfortheworld ( talk) 04:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

A request has been made for this portal to be portal peer review. Contributions and suggestions are welcome. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed a bunch of articles I have edited and have been watching showing up with a bot removing the category -name of country- flag bearers at the Summer Olympics based upon a nearly four year old discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 15 that had all of one single vote to delete the category and two others to listify. Personally I think being selected to carry one's flag is a significant honor among Olympic athletes. I would think those of us who recognize the significance of the Olympics also will recognize the honor this has amongst the already notable athletes of the Olympics. Perhaps the reason this bot missed the categories is subsequent to the decision, other editors have added the more country specific categories. Its deleting the edits, work of many other editors who obviously thought this was significant. The question is: how do we reverse this short sighted, poorly discussed, ancient decision? Trackinfo ( talk) 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. My answer is: addressing a request to administrators. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 04:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrative action . . its not disruptive. It requires some form of discussion to overrule the decision. Most of the procedures in WP are set up to remove content. It seems very hard to get something that has been decided to be removed, back. Trackinfo ( talk) 05:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I made a request here for promotion to Featured portals. Any suggestion or contribution is welcome. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 18:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Year	Athletes	Events	Medals				Rank
			Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
2004	2	2	0	0	0	0	—
2008	2	2	0	0	0	0	—
Totals	2	2	0	0	0	0	—
	2	2	0	0	0	0	—

Hi, I have a small question and I hope you can help. I'm having a problem in these wikitables. Look at the column "Athletes" and do you think the number in "Totals" should 4 (2+2) or 2 as it is now, because both years same athletes competed. Either way it's actually logical, but summed up number (4) would be easier to count. Pelmeen10 ( talk) 19:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If it is the same two athletes competing, logically then the country has had two Olympic athletes. A person repeating as an Olympic athlete might have two performances or appearances, but they still are just one person. Trackinfo ( talk) 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello.

I have initiated a discussion on WP:RM ( here) on the naming standard of subevents articles.

The question is: should articles be named "Volleyball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men" or "Volleyball at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament" (or something else).

Please share your thoughts on the subject, so we can achieve consistency in article naming.

HandsomeFella ( talk) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The

template was recently redirected to the

one. A move I have since reverted. For clarity, the former template has links to the actual general sport articles, while the latter template links to the "X at the Summer Olympics" sub-set of articles. The main issue is that User:Koavf and I disagree on whether it is feasible that a reader would want to navigate between the sport articles themselves, and not just solely the "at Olympics" ones. For example, I believe it is highly likely that a reader might want to move from Athletics (sport) to Swimming (sport) on the grounds that these are both Olympic sports. What are others' opinions? Is there consensus to redirect the template or maintain the distinctions? SFB 19:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the second template is perfect. The link at "olympic article" is better. -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 04:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cyclist Pollack rode in the qualifying rounds of the men's team pursuit at the 2000 Games, as a member of the German team. This German team later won the gold medal, but Pollack was not a member of this team in the final. Is it likely that he received a golden medal for this? (His current article does not even mention this result, I wanted to add this, but I don't know if I should add the relevant categories and infoboxes for golden medalists.)-- EdgeNavidad ( Talk · Contribs) 07:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an obscure list about Olympic sized pools in Ireland that is the subject of a heated dispute (RFC and RM) Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland related to these terms--Olympic-sized, Olympic-standard, and 50 meter pool. I just closed the RM returning the title to the pre-RFC title. The RFC is still ongoing. Expert input from those familar with Olympic swimming would be useful. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 12:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Following the RFC, there is now a request for a multiple page move, please see Talk:List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland#Requested move 2:

• List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the Republic of Ireland → List of long course pools in the Republic of Ireland
• List of Olympic-size swimming pools in the United Kingdom → List of long course pools in the United Kingdom

-- Mirokado ( talk) 18:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it time to have a 2026 winter article? There's already a 2028 summer article, and the 2022 article already contains information about 2026 potential bids. 70.24.251.208 ( talk) 07:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI: I've posted an issue in Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 June 4 that reflects a lot of copy and paste in articles about events in the 2012 Olympics. Location ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Just under a hundred articles still refer to the old sort icon, , instead of the new sort icon, , and 80% of those articles are for this (or the Paralympic) project. It just requires a minor change of "none" to "both". Mark Hurd ( talk) 15:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Simple enough AWB task. Doing. Courcelles 16:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done, for the 95 mainspace uses. Other namespaces were not changed. Courcelles 16:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I need to consider AWB myself. Mark Hurd ( talk) 03:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_17#Template:Olympic_sports The discussion stalled and needs consensus. Thanks. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been absent around here for a while but hopefully I'm not entirely forgotten by members of this Project.... Based upon by experience of previous Games I'd like to put forward a number of articles that should be kept up to date and up to a decent standard as a matter of priority because casual/occasional users editing related articles are likely to follow the lead. My area of expertise is particularly around Country at xxxx Games and as we already have a set of guidelines (which admittedly I helped write) for these I'd like to suggest that key articles to focus on are United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics, Russia, China and (of course) Great Britain. Particular emphasis should be placed on how to keep these and related articles down to a manageable length. Similar key articles probably exist for "Event" at xxxx Summer Olympics and "Sport" at xxxx Summer Olympics pages and I'd appreciate suggestions for what these may be - Basement12 (T. C) 00:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on improving articles about female Australian Olympians who will be competing at the Games. -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Olympics for a Signpost article to be published days before this year's opening ceremony. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. - Mabeenot ( talk) 06:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have nominated List of 1936 Winter Olympics medal winners for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JeepdaySock ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 29 November 2010 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have discovered source materials for a large number of Olympic articles, that were formerly housed at http://www.aafla.com have been moved to the new domain http://www.la84foundation.org. From what I can determine, they have not changed the locations of the reports, so the rest of the link should remain correct. You can see the change I made in this edit. So the bot needs to wholesale change domain names only. I don't know how to get approval for such a bot nor whom to contact to have the work done.

WP:OR speaking indirectly with a librarian associated with the organization (now the LA 84 Foundation, the remains of the 1984 LAOOC), they underwent a formal name change and are deliberately trying to expunge the previous name. Inside the office, there is a fine for mentioning the previous name. Trackinfo ( talk) 22:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That can be made with AutoWikiBrowser. I'll see if I can make those changes during the next weekend. Parutakupiu ( talk) 22:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Done the first thousand of these, though there are likely more. Courcelles 01:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Found a few more hundred, fixed, and really not sure there's much left. Courcelles 04:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've seen your work on many pages I watch. Good job. It looks like you are doing this semi-manually. I thought a bot would be more appropriate for such repetitive edits. Thanks for the hard work. Trackinfo ( talk) 06:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Is a person who has participated in a demonstration game at a summer Olympics automatically notable per WP:NOLYMPICS? The guideline doesn't mention demonstration games, but it also doesn't exclude them. Thanks.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 13:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Help is needed on Netball and the Olympic Movement article. The article has been locked due to a serious content dispute. Many of the sources are not reliable and are being misinterpreted or misapplied. The article in its present form has serious POV problems. Please read the talk page and join in the efforts to fix it. Thank you. 68.188.61.6 ( talk) 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone be interested in setting up and / or participating in an Olympic/Paralympic WikiCup? Modeled kind of after the Bacon Wiki Cup? Have it run from say a week before the opening ceremony for the Olympics and a week after the Paralympics? I can probably offer two prizes: Some book about the Olympics, a print of an Olympic related commons image, and a Pediapress book.

Points for the following things about the Olympics/Paralympics:

Category	Points
Fully reliably source an article of 100+ words (partially sourced)	2
Adding a relevant picture to an article without one	2
Adding a complete infobox for articles with out them	2
Fully reliably source an article of 500+ words (partially sourced)	5
Fully reliably source an article of 100+ words (completely unsourced)	5
Comprehensive (no quick pass/fail) GA review	5
Create a spoken word version of an article 25+ words	5
Fully reliably source an article of 1,000+ words (partially sourced)	10
Fully reliably source an article of 500+ words (completely unsourced)	10
Create a spoken word version of an article 100+ words	10
Fully reliably source an article of 1,000+ words (completely unsourced)	20
Create a spoken word version of an article 500+ words	20
Create/improve an article for DYK	25
Publish a Wikinews article	25
Get an image or other media to featured on English Wikipedia or Commons	25
Create a spoken word version of an article 1,000+ words	30
Substantially contribute to, nominate, and follow through an article for GA	50
Substantially contribute to, nominate, and follow through an article for FL	50

This way, lots of way for people to participate across different projects. :) -- LauraHale ( talk) 06:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

A nice idea but I wonder if during the Games is the best time to implement it? From previous experience most of the edits that I end up making during the Games tend to be relatively small updates. Adding sources tends to be limited to referencing results or the multitude of stub type articles that are created, everything moves too fast to focus much on tasks like getting pages to GA or making spoken word versions until things have died down a few weeks after the Games. Perhaps some kind of project wide effort to have an Olypic DYK on the front page at all times during the Games would be good and have the WikiCup after the Paralympics are finished to encourage clean-up and improvement of all the 2012 pages that will contain little sourcing or prose and a lot of red-linked athlete names? - Basement12 (T. C) 11:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One competed in Rugby in 1924, the other was a spy. Are they actually the same person? Please comment at Talk:Linn Farrish D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 03:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have made a proposition to harmonise most of the templates in Category:Medal infobox templates. mPlease contribute to the discussion here. SFB 16:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Are they actually called this officially and have they been assigned IOP as their IOC country code? IOP has not been used since 1992 and was used for an existing nation being sanctioned. IOA was used more recently (2000) for a newly independent nation that had not yet formed an NOC. IOC has apparently been used for Kuwait at Asian games. If no source can be found for what they are called and which country code they have been assigned, I think they should be referred to as "Netherlands Antillean athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics", with no country code given, as that it what we know as of today. 88.88.163.201 ( talk) 15:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Netherlands Antilles (as IOP or similar) is currently not available in the countries section of the official website. The athletes section hasn't really started yet, so info on the two athletes can't be found there. We will know the correct country code eventually, but the information in the article, and indeed the current article title, may be incorrect. 88.88.163.201 ( talk) 19:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic sports has recently undergone a Good Article Reassessment and been delisted. This article should be considered one of the project's flagship pages so any help to get it back up to GA status would be appreciated - Basement12 (T. C) 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Olympic Games is a FA that has not been presented on the main page. I think it should be on July 27, for reasons that should be obvious for members of this project. This can be discussed and voted on at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Can someone check so it is in extra good shape for the event? -- Ettrig ( talk) 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It isn't in good shape. I've tagged all the places needing citations as the text is not cited. (This list is pretty extensive.) The sourcing isn't consistently formatted, with multiple styles used in the article. this and this and this and this is broken. New sources or archived versions or offline sources need to be found for that. There was a lot of stuff promoted from 2007 to 2010 that hasn't been maintained on the GAN and FAC level. :( -- LauraHale ( talk) 13:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear this. Does it mean Olympic Games should go to WP:FAR? -- Ettrig ( talk) 18:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FreeBMD record the birth of 'Davis, John Creyghton A' [not Davies] for births registered in Aberystwyth in June 1895. The copy of the original register gives the spelling of the surname as Davis, not Davies.

Births Jun 1895

Surname First name(s) District Vol Page

Davis John Creyghton A Aberystwith 11b 55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.69.221 ( talk) 11:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have copied the above comment to Talk:John Ainsworth-Davies. I suggest we continue the discussion there, in anticipation of a possible page move. There are other references that support the "Davis" spelling. –  Wdchk ( talk) 17:18, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Olympic Games" (grammatical number) (version of 21:39, 4 July 2012).
— Wavelength ( talk) 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a special holding area for DYK hooks that have been approved and are about the Olympics. These will run during the two weeks of the Olympics. At the moment, most of the DYKs there are about people from the Australia, with a few people from the USA and the Great Britain. It would be great to see more countries represented in DYK-land. :) Support your country. Improve articles related to your country's Olympic movement ahead of the Games. ;) -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's the link - Basement12 (T. C) 11:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed within the past few days an editor has made massive changes to the formatting within the nations at the 2012 Olympics articles. In the sections for Athletics (track and field), the results were previously ordered by event. So all the runners in 100m for the country would be in consecutive columns, then all the runners in the 200m, and so on. The editor has changed it so the athletes are listed alphabetically regardless of events. So the 100m runners may be an opposite ends of the table depending on where their last names falls in the alphabet. I think these changes ought to be reversed for procedural and substantive reasons. Procedurally, such a massive formatting overhaul should go through discussion and consensus. I don't see any of that. If that has occurred, can some please direct me to the Talk page where it occurred. It appears this massive change is a unilateral action without any Talk page discussion or even edit summaries. Furthermore, it is not consistent with the predominant formatting that existed before. Substantively, I find the organization by event to be better. Since the nation articles are organized by sport, it makes sense to organize it within each sport by event rather than by individual. Furthermore, if I'm looking at the nation article, I often want to see how that nation's contingent in an event did. It's very frustrating to have to search through a table to see where the various marathoners have been dispersed. Organizing alphabetically by last name to the detriment/disruption of organizing by event has drawbacks that heavily outweigh its benefits. If you know the name of a person, it shouldn't be hard to find their various events. The reader is likely to have a good idea of which events the athlete competed in and can even go that athletes article. The disruption in splitting up the athletes that competed in the same event by putting first priority on last name is frustrating. I plan to start changing massive formatting change back to the original format while this is issue is discussed (unless someone can point out consensus otherwise already exists). -- JamesAM ( talk) 00:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I think in many, if not most, cases the predominant and original format has in fact been to order alphabetically by athlete surname. The manual of style calls for athletes to "be arranged alphabetically according to their last names". Personally I find it more awkward to have the results of an athlete who competed in multiple events seperated. Your point that to find an athlete's results the reader can go to their article is equally true of being able to go to the event article. - Basement12 (T. C) 02:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) The best way to find out what's the predominant method is to look at the articles. I look at the 2004 and 2008 articles for the U.S., Mexico, Brazil, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, France, and Great Britain. I chose those 9 countries because they were a geographic diverse group of populous countries likely to have sizeable athletics (track and field contingents. Seven of the 9 had their athletics competitors ordered by event (although at least one article would list the second event of some multiple competitors after the first - otherwise sticking to the "by event" order). Only 2 of the 9 were by alphabetical order regardless of event. (2) I don't think the full manual of style quote supports alphabetical regardless of event argument. The full quote is "More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, must be arranged alphabetically according to their last names (Chinese and Korean family names come first, so this table is not needed for these cases)." To me, "sport category" sounds like an event - each category within a sport. If it simply meant sport, why not use that word alone. The following phrase "whether individual, pair, or team" makes this even clearer. Each event is individual, pair, or team. A whole sport is not. Athletics is not just one, it's individual or team. Badminton is individual or pair. Synchronized swimming is pair or team. In other words, the competitors in each event should be in alphabetical order. The 100m runners for the country should be in alphabetical order - not all the track people regardless of event. The badminton players within a pair should be in order. The synchronized swimmers within a team should be in order. (3) No, my point about being able to find results together is not equally true of event articles. If you go to a good athlete article, there will be a paragraph and/or table with the results of their events at one Olympics listed together. If you go to an event article - Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 800 metres, for example - you don't find a country's results aggregated together. You have to search through the various tables and heats to find the 3 U.S. competitors, who are scattered. It's the same problem as searching in the "purely last name" approach. There should be a place to conveniently find how a country's athletes did in each particular event, rather than having to hunt for a dispersed trio whose individual names I might not know. -- JamesAM ( talk) 03:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

When the manual of style was drawn up the phrase "sport category" was used as the IOC definition of a "sport" would lump events together that we choose to separate on Wikipedia e.g aquatics is split into swimming, synchronised swimming and diving, so I wouldn't get too hung up on interpreting the wording. Taking Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics as an example yes athletics is listed by event as there were no instances where an athlete completing in multiple events would have their results split, swimming on the other hand has many cases of this and so is listed entirely by athlete surname. I can see your point of view but my preference is to keep one athletes results together where possible - Basement12 (T. C) 12:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think intrepreting the language of the Manual or style is getting hung up. It's a rational and proper inquiry. If we're going to make arguments about what the Manual of Style means, then it matters what it means. I've made the effort to give concrete reasons (a canons of construction view in a sense) to support my interpretation. I don't see any discussion/consensus that "sport category" should be taken to mean discipline. "Discipline" is the term used in Olympic sports to describe the sub-groups of swimming, diving, synchronized swimming within aquatics. The ordering by event, when no one is in multiple events, doesn't sound like an argument for pure last name ordering. -- JamesAM ( talk) 16:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

As someone who wrote a large amount of the manual of style I can tell you that we didn't intend it to be inerpreted as you are doing. The intention was to list by athlete surname both within pairs/teams and then within lists of athletes in a table, but I grant you the current wording is poor. I still think if you look at a range of older articles (not just the last 2 Summer Games) then it is more common to list by athlete name ( 1, 2, 3) but to be honest I don't care enough about how they're ordered to spend any more time discussing it. If there is a consensus built either way then the order decieded upon should be consistently implemented across all articles for all nations in all years at both the Summer and Winter Games - Basement12 (T. C) 16:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The manual of style is not sacred. Let us innovate and overcome. How about we start a new standard of enabling sorting for both event and name, allowing for both "by event" and "by athlete" grouping (see my test at the 2012 US page). Also, regarding the 2008 men's 800 metres: the athletes can be sorted by country to group their results together. SFB 10:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This may not be appropriate but I couldn't easily find any members of this project who specialize in Olympic weightlifting.

Is it possible for a country to send three athletes to the same weightlifting weight class? -- TheShadowCrow ( talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. From Official London 2012 website "Each country is limited to 10 athletes (six men and four women) across all events, with a maximum of two athletes in any event" - Basement12 (T. C) 21:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kuwait at the 2012 Summer Olympics be deleted and the contents merged with Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics? Topcardi ( talk) 10:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it could be moved to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics as they are designated as such by a source from olympic.org. Country code should probably remain KUW as we have no source for any different code. (IOA was Individual Olympic Athletes.) Anyway, there are problems with the designation of Netherlands Antillean athletes as IOP, the source uses "independent athletes under the Olympic flag" which is just a description. 88.88.163.201 ( talk) 13:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait cannot be found at www.london2012.com/country by using the search function or browsing the Asia section. (Empty sites exist at www.london2012.com/country/kuwait and www.london2012.com/country/netherlands-antilles as opposed to nothing at www.london2012.com/country/south-sudan.) 88.88.163.201 ( talk) 22:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem for the page, Canada at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The administrator wants to protect the page, and then revert the page into its own. I have noticed some parts that are against our edit summaries. The tables are in forced widths and the administrator didn't want to adjust the tables properly in which these will trigger display problems once the results are filled in. Moments later, the administrator decided to protect its page in which no other user is allowed to edit. I have done fixing the page already five times, and suddenly discarded them. What shall we do? Raymarcbadz ( talk) 14:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I've made some comments on the talk page - Basement12 (T. C) 23:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Quick question. I saw the previous discussion on this topic here. I have nothing against this, but still I would like to ask for an opinion on some other things. More precise. How should individual athletes be categorized? There are four different categories (with their subcategories). For some of them it is clear who qualifies for them, for some not so much:

1. Category:Olympic competitors as Independent Olympic Participants This one is clear. Here goes only competitors from 1992 Olympics (as far as ex-Yu is concerned).

2. Category:Olympic competitors for Serbia This one is also clear. Only competitors from 2008 onwards.

3. Category:Olympic competitors for Serbia and Montenegro Now this is a bit tricky one. Only thing certain is that it should include competitors from 2004 and 2006 Olympics.

4. Category:Olympic competitors for Yugoslavia Another tricky one. It's however clear that it should include competitors until 1990.

This leaves a question mark for competitors for FR Yugoslavia, from 1996 until 2002. Most of them are currently in the category of Yugoslav Olympic competitors. Which is kind of logical. Since they indeed competed for country named Yugoslavia. However. Should they all be transferred to categories Serbia and Montenegro Olympic competitors? Since all of the results in period from 1996 until 2006 are being summarized under that name? Nightfall87 ( talk) 12:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be 3 particular categories:

1. Olympic competitiors for Yugoslavia (1920 Summer games - 1992 winter games) 2. Olympic competitors as Independent Olympic Participants (1992 summer games) 3. Olympic competitiors for Serbia and Montenegro (1996 summer games - 2006 winter games)

Olympic medalists for FR Yugoslavia then should be moved in category Olympic medalists of Serbian and Montenegro? FR Yugoslavian medals aren't SFRY medals -- Backij ( talk) 12:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

A question has been raised with regards to the little icons that seem to be placed in many of the nation articles' section headers. As an example, look at the headers for sports in this article. I had removed the icons from several articles before I had come to realize that this may have been a vestige of a decision passed by this WikiProject. It is sensible that the images should be removed ( MOS:HEAD), but I am curious if there had been some kind of precedent that was set and if there is any reason why these header icons should stay. -- Starstriker7^{( Talk)} 20:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Images should be systematically removed from headers because they are screen reader inaccessible. I've started stripping them from articles I wander across. -- LauraHale ( talk) 20:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

They're clutter, and should be removed under MOS:ACCESS reasons, if not for the visual improvement removing them would bring to articles. Courcelles 20:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, alright. I had figured as much. Thanks for the clarifications. -- Starstriker7^{( Talk)} 22:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

At the time a layout guideline was drafted for those series of articles, the use of icons in the section headers was pretty much established and questions concerning accessibility issues were rarely raised, so its use was considered and even recommended in the manual of style. Nowadays, I agree that they serve no purpose other than aesthetics and can cause readability problems. I'm perfectly in favour if a consensus is reached towards removing these icons from section headings. Parutakupiu ( talk) 23:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as Parutakupiu says above; they were only ever in place for aesthetic purposes, the use of them was removed from our style guidelines by LauraHale last year when readability issues became clear. I have no problem with having them removed - Basement12 (T. C) 00:15, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support their removal. If guidance at MOS:HEAD prohibits them, then we shouldn't really be using them. Wesley Mouse 22:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

There are still editors adding images to section headers, despite the policies on MOS:HEAD that explicitly state they should not be included. Would it not be appropriate to send a reminder out to all project members talk pages regarding this? Wesley Mouse 08:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the MoS isn't policy, and it can be contravened when there's a good reason. There is no good reason to do so here, though, as I see it. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 09:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Policies/guidelines - all the same thing really. Especially when MoS is included in the Key Wikipedia policies and guidelines template - the clue is in the title me thinks. Wesley Mouse 09:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle. Really, I do. Some people, however, take exception to anyone thinking the MoS should be followed whenever possible. I won't go into detail, but it can get insane sometimes. Just thought you should be aware of that. :) Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 09:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As much as I appreciate that you were helping, I am fully aware of it - so don't really need reminding. And on that note, I need some food - next volunteering shift starts in 6 and half hours from now. Wesley Mouse 09:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. All the documents for the independents have the code IOP now, and not IOA. Wesley Mouse 09:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

On Jasna Šekarić the medal record correctly indicates that she "Competed as an Independent Participant. On the other two medallists' articles ( Aranka Binder and Stevan Pletikosić) this is is rendered as "Competitor for Competed as an Independent Participant". I have tried to copy from the correct article to the other two, but the previews showed that I was unsuccessful. I hope someone with experience with the template can fix it. In case it is browser related I'll mention that the issue was discovered while using Internet Explorer 9. 88.88.164.233 ( talk) 21:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your attempt to copy the code didn't work as they use a diferent template to Jasna Šekarić (userboxes rather than just a medal record). I've botched a fix to make the pages look right but someone more skilled can probably play with the templates themselves to allow them to read "competed as an" rather than "competitor for" - Basement12 (T. C) 21:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have changed templates in the two incorrect articles, as the only additional information in the different template was the birth dates which are in the first line of the articles anyway. 88.88.164.233 ( talk) 19:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How can these be populated yet? I thought they existed to cat people who had actually competed at the games, not those listed to compete? How does anyone know that the 109 swimmers will actually compete? I don't advocate deletion, as they'll be recreated in <10 days' time anyway, but I think some care is needed to ensure the people in them did compete. Lugnuts ( talk) 11:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for the accuracy of every entry by every editor, but we are currently populating the articles for all the various teams that are being sent to the Olympics. Yes, there will be some anomalies when we see who actually shows up, but we have a fairly firm basis--that being the people named by the various national Olympic Committees for prescribed events, verifiable content. When the Olympics publish entry lists, we can make these more accurate. This is all very public stuff. I see lots of editors making detailed corrections as information comes out. During the competition, there will be groups of editors constantly tweaking the content--I watched this first hand as one of them doing the 2011 World Championships in Athletics. With anything wikipedia, there will be short spans of time when something is slightly inaccurate, before another knowledgeable editor comes along and fixes it. I don't see the need for any aggressive action for deletion necessary at this time. Frankly, the more preliminary legwork that is done, the better. That way we can focus on the actual events rather than the details of getting a name spelled correctly, a country attribution correct, formatting etc. etc. Trackinfo ( talk) 20:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This. It is better to have well sources biographies in advance that say they were named to the squad for the Games than not. The articles become more comprehensive, well sourced and better in compliance with policy. Many 2008 Summer Olympics articles were created only AFTER the Games and as stubs that have not been updated since. Better Starts and Cs in advance than stubs after when interest fades or less well equipped editors create BLP violations after they medal. -- LauraHale ( talk) 23:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Chicken or egg. What inspires people, possibly new editors, to add information, a red link or a stub? By the sheer nature of being part of the Olympics the subjects of these articles are notable. So if someone has already created the initial formatting, it gives a home for new information to be added painlessly, vs the labor, confusion or fear of starting an article from scratch. When this is all in the world media's eye over the next couple of weeks, when better to have information added. I don't think having incomplete articles around, vs no article, is that bad of an idea. Trackinfo ( talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Like list of Olympic torch relays. Sagittarian Milky Way ( talk) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just end up being an article full of images? I'd say information on the torches are more beneficial and relevant to the respective torch relay articles. Wesley Mouse 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Wesley Mouse, yep entirely right. Whilst an argument can be made for articles on the torches individually as (recently) their design gets decent press coverage I think it's much better details are included within the relay (and briefly in the main Games) articles - Basement12 (T. C) 22:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

According to the London 2012 official website, the Dutch Antillean athletes will compete as "Independent Olympic Athletes" (IOA) not "Independent Olympic Participants" (IOP). The code IOA was used in 2000 for East Timorese athletes under the name " Individual Olympic Athletes". And now? See Talk:2012 Summer Olympics#Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics should be renamed. Jonas kam ( talk) 07:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started updating Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Summer articles/NOC table. I have two questions.

1. Is this table still useful.
2. Could someone check it - especially my edits - because there is a huge amount of data and I think a second look would be good.

Hektor ( talk) 17:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For me personally, I find the charts useful. The question marks will just have to be fixed when the games actually take place, but you did a great job updating it. -- J36miles ( talk) 15:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

For a long time WP has had templates for basketball and swimming teams such as {{ United States Men Basketball Squad 2008 Summer Olympics}} and {{ Footer USA Swimming 2004 Summer Olympics}}. I have noticed that {{ Footer USA Track & Field 2012 Summer Olympics}} was created.

1. Do we want to have templates for all teams like boxing, gymnastics, or any other sport?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Do we want to create similar track templates for all past teams?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Do we want to get the categories that they are in structured similarly?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is a historical one that may serve as an example {{ Footer USA Track & Field 1996 Summer Olympics}}, I may produce a few others.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 21:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

They seem like a useful enough addition, although I would recommend strictly limiting these to larger delegations. It would be much more useful to create whole delegation navs for the smaller nations rather than sport-specific ones (e.g. Bahamas: 25 entries in 2008). For reference, only about a dozen nations entered over 40 people into the athletics events at the 2004 Olympics.

There is likely some interest in grouping past American Olympic track and field teams, but my gut says that desire is probably less so for other nations. Category-wise, I'm less convinced of the overall value of categorising by games+nationality. Carl Lewis already has eight Olympic categories. Adding four more might not be a good idea (unless we can technically revolutionise our method of categorisation!). SFB 22:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This issue is more for the Amy Acuff and Dominique Dawes types of athletes than it is for the Lewises.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Category-wise I was talking about getting the templates categorized properly.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question. The template containing the name of the athlete should be added at the bottom of the same article of the athlete, as for any navigational template? -- Kasper2006 ( talk) 10:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes one objective is to put {{ Footer USA Gymnastics 1996 Summer Olympics}} rather than {{ Olympic champions artistic gymnastics Women TC}} on the bottom of a page like Dominique Dawes-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The track & field ones will take me a while to create, but I have created a few of these for boxing and gymnastics:

• USA Gymnastics 1984 Summer Olympics
• USA Gymnastics 1996 Summer Olympics
• USA Gymnastics 2008 Summer Olympics
• USA Gymnastics 2012 Summer Olympics
• USA Boxing 1960 Summer Olympics
• USA Boxing 1976 Summer Olympics
• USA Boxing 1984 Summer Olympics
• USA Boxing 1988 Summer Olympics
• USA Boxing 1992 Summer Olympics
• USA Boxing 2012 Summer Olympics

I am not going to create any more, but will work on the categories. Hopefully, others will fill in the rest of the years:-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have created Category:Olympics athletics team navigational boxes, Category:Olympics gymnastics team navigational boxes and Category:Olympics boxing team navigational boxes as well as Category:United States Olympics navigational boxes and subcats Category:United States gymnastics Olympics squad navigational boxes , Category:United States athletics Olympics squad navigational boxes and Category:United States boxing Olympics squad navigational boxes, for which I could use some assistance filling in templates. I am pretty much done with this. Once I slap the templates into the pages they belong, I will be moving on to other efforts. Hopefully this is enough impetus to get others to help out.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 00:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I apologize if people think that that gymnastics team templates should be separated like basketball.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

With the games starting in less than a week, would it be a good time to start a drive to gain new members and to update the membership list or is it too late? J36miles ( talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, the following articles should be deleted - 2022 Winter Olympics, 2024 Summer Olympics & 2028 Summer Olympics. - GoodDay ( talk) 19:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And for what reason should they be deleted? All the articles are relevant and contain citations to reliable sources which verify their content. The articles also give insight into the entire bidding process which as everyone know takes place several years prior to the host selection taking place. So on that basis, I strongly oppose any such deletion. Wesley Mouse 08:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough, WP:NOLYMPICS has nothing to say on the topic of when a particular instance of the Games becomes notable enough for inclusion. Regardless, I'm with Wesley -- coverage of the bidding process &c. makes them plenty notable for our purposes. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 08:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

We should 'atleast' wait until a 'host city' is chosen, before creating an article. GoodDay ( talk) 21:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Something unique about Olympic Games articles is that in their early stages, they really should be titled "Bids for the XXXX Olympics." In the lead up to city selection, that is what the article documents. Once the Host City is selected, the bulk of the bid information is then transferred to such a named article and the "XXXX Olympics" concerns only the Games with just a reference and link to the old information. This model has worked well for at least five years here on WP so I don't see a reason to change it, but I see your point, GoodDay.

One other note of interest, it has been agreed upon by the project that pages for new Games (next up 2026 Winter Olympics) are only started when there are documented sources noting bids or attempts at organization. So we have learned to not create additional articles too soon. But as the other editors note, these bids are often planned up to 15 years in advance. For example, The Netherlands has been discussing their 2028 bid since at least 2008, which is *20 years* in advance. Cbradshaw ( talk) 16:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion here which I feel would benefit from the input of knowledgeable editors. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 02:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See also the requested move discussion at Talk:Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics‎. Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this one is resolved, actually. A brief frenzy of confusion has been clarified by a careful examination of the available sources. If you're interested in the boring details, you can find them at the talk page cited above. Carry on! Evanh2008 ^{( talk| contribs)} 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move discussion still active, with need for input. Additionally there is this expansion with much larger effects. 85.167.109.186 ( talk) 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. For the 2012 Summer Paralympics, two Wikipedians ( myself and Hawkeye7) are going to London to cover the Games with press credentials acquired through Wikimedia Australia. Covering these Games successfully on Wikinews and Wikipedia provides a fantastic opportunity to use this as leverage to get the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games in the next few years. The more successful we are at doing on the ground Original Reporting that coincides with Wikipedia article improvements and getting pictures in advance, the better we can use it to get additional access because Wikipedia and Wikinews will have a track record of success. In order to do this, we need your help on Wikinews. The Wikinews part is being organised as Wikinews:Paralympic Games. The main focus needs to be writing Original Reporting. We need people to help copy edit, to take original reporting notes and write them into Wikinews articles, who can hunt down acceptable licenses for pictures to use on articles. (IPC policy only allows a CC-BY-NC kind of license at the events. Not sure accreditation wise we'll be good to go with getting our own images in any case.) We also need people who can help with reviewing. Any assistance you can provide would be very much appreciated. Please sign up at Wikinews:Paralympic Games. :) -- LauraHale ( talk) 22:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

See A Reporter's Guide to Sports and Olympics Reporting - TrustMedia.

— Wavelength ( talk) 22:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Relevance to request for assistance? Will you be assisting us on Wikinews? -- LauraHale ( talk) 23:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first question is answered by the following information on that web page.

'A Reporter's Guide to Sports and Olympics Reporting' is written by Foundation Consultant, Colin McIntyre with contributions from former Reuters Sports Editor Steve Parry, who has covered 19 Olympic Games, and from other Reuters reporters. They guide you through the preparations that will help you, give you an idea of what to expect at the event, warn you of pitfalls, and encourage you to raise your own game as a journalist.

The answer to your second question is "I have no immediate plans to edit Wikinews."

— Wavelength ( talk) 00:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 111#Censorship and 2012 Summer Olympics.
— Wavelength ( talk) 20:22, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The IOC has recently given the Nigerian team made up of Bada, Jude Monye, Clement Chukwu and Enefiok Udo-Ubong . A decision was taken to reallocate the medals from 2000 came three years after they had decided to the disqualify the United States team. Jamaica are now the silver medallists and the Bahamas have the bronze medal. Therefore, the information as such should be changed on the page holding Nigeria at the Sydney Olympics 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayofabulous ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Quietly Confident Quartet (FA) into Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay (GA). Discussion here. -- jnestorius^{( talk)} 10:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've kicked off the Chronological summary of the 2012 Summer Olympics with the aim of having it be in a form similar to Chronological summary of the 2008 Summer Olympics. I've also asked here whether having a link to the page from the main page's "In the news" section (as I seem to remember happening in 2008) would be appropriate throughout the Games - Basement12 (T. C) 16:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for a change we have an editor trying to insist that the Great Britain team is in fact called "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and making changes to Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics that imply this. I can't make further changes due to 3:RR but I've started a discussion at Talk:Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Edits by FerrerFour. I've also left notes at User talk:FerrerFour. - Basement12 (T. C) 15:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I am the creator of the article Jade Bailey (footballer) I came here hoping to ask for help in expanding it because you folks presumably know what you're doing. I don't know enough about olympians to do a good article here. I need 1500 characters to get it past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Jade_Bailey_(footballer) . Would you care to help? Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 12:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

1988 Seoul Olympics Oath, Mi-Na Son is miss-typed as Mi-Na Shon. The problem is that the miss-typed version is consistent not only within the wiki but throughout the whole internet. I am the native speaker of Korean, and, trust me, there is no "Shon" in Korean. Of course, the article of "Mi-Na 'Shon'" has a reference, and I confirmed that the reference refers her name as 'Shon'. Then, I found out that the reference is not official. I visited the official Olympics record "www.olympics.org", and then I found there that the name "Mi-Ha Son" comes consistently just at the place where "Mi-Na Shon" should be.

I think that "H" is mis-writing of "N" occured by handwriting, and "Shon" is mis-"copy and paste". I know that I cannot change the title of the article myself, as the issue does not seem to be obvious to the non-native speakers, so I came here with the topic. I wish that this argument is convincing.

For more details, "Son" is sometimes written as "Sohn" so I suspect that there is a possibility that "Mi-na Sohn" is correct, but I couldn't find other references. I think we should follow the official record and write in "Mi-Na Son". W890702 ( talk) 10:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In the official olympic report ( page 201) she is listed as Mi-Na Son, and also at sports-reference. I'm going to go ahead and move the page based on those sources - Basement12 (T. C) 14:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

In reference to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_at_the_Olympics#Medals_by_Summer_Games

There is a medal count table which displays China's rank as #1 for the 2008 games. China won the most gold medals, but not the most total medals. This column should be removed or renamed as it is ambiguous. Furthermore, the IOC does not endorse a Global Ranking:

The Charter goes even further in Chapter 5, section 58, expressly prohibiting the IOC from producing an official ranking:

“	The IOC and the OCOG shall not draw up any global ranking per country. A roll of honour bearing the names of medal winners and those awarded diplomas in each event shall be established by the OCOG and the names of the medal winners shall be featured prominently and be on permanent display in the main stadium.	”
— International Olympic Committee

According to Australian IOC member Kevan Gosper, the IOC began to accommodate medals tables in 1992, releasing 'information' based on the 'gold first' standard. ^[1] The medal tables provided on its website carry this disclaimer:

“	The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not recognise global ranking per country; the medal tables are displayed for information only. Furthermore, the results that we publish are official and are taken from the "Official Report" - a document published for each Olympic Games by the Organising Committee. However, for the first Olympic Games (until Antwerp in 1920), it is difficult to give the exact number of medals awarded to some countries, due to the fact that teams were composed of athletes from different countries. The medal tables by country are based on the number of medals won, with gold medals taking priority over silver and bronze. A team victory counts as one medal.	”
— International Olympic Committee [2]

Evan ( talk) 15:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

why is there no mention of NI ? its all GB in the games. do we not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.121.69.96 ( talk) 16:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on implementing a Olympics-specific importance scale. Please comment at the Assessment talk page. Thanks, ThaddeusB ( talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have to remind all Wikipedia users working on the Olympics to follow the manual of the Olympics as a project by Wikipedia. I have done and updated all the articles related to the Olympics, particularly on the countries competing in different sports. I have noticed that several users are not following on the manual, and I kept on revising and editing the results of those who are currently competing at the Olympics. For the {{n/a|Bye}} template, it is already satisfied since Basement12 approved it. However, putting "Did not advance" or vice versa for the {{n/a}} template is more confusing than the standard template of {{n/a}}. It would be better if you simply put "Did not advance" without any background color, and always follow the manual WP:OLYMOSNAT to make things better, and to update and place results easily at a definite time. Thank you, and I hope you understand and follow what I said, and what is stipulated from the manual. (T. C) 17:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I'm entirely happy with my "name" being put across as if it's gospel like that. The guidelines we have were drawn up as WP:CONSENSUS four years ago but if opinion now differs, with reason, then things can (and should) easily be changed - Basement12 (T. C) 03:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the Did not advance code with {{ n/a}} should be acceptable, though my opinion is not the final word. If there is any objections to the use of the {{ n/a}} template's Did not advance function, I could see how it is confusable with the "N/A" and "BYE" functions, and I would advocate a middle-ground stance in having the "Did not advance" text with a regular background color, but in the smaller text size of the "N/A" and "BYE" texts, so as to keep with the notion that it is differentiable from the normal results font size yet differs in function from "N/A" and "BYE." Prayerfortheworld ( talk) 06:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record I am against the use of background colours, even the grey in those templates, as it draws entirely unwarranted attention to certain areas of results tables. It's just about ok for the n/a sections as I can see some need for distinguishing rounds than didn't exist in certain competitions but even that is questionable. On a related note I have no idea why "BYE" has become the norm, there is absolutely no reason to capitalise the whole word and where used it should be "Bye" - Basement12 (T. C) 09:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello WP:Olympics! In the course of my going about making sure some articles were properly categorized, namely in this case Wodjan Shaherkani, I realized that there are a number of sports where we don't have gendered categories, making it harder especially (I think) to find articles on women competitors. May I propose creating and populating Category:Female judoka, Category:Female taekwondo practitioners, etc.? Because of the very large number of articles involved, I'm reluctant to take on this task solo. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have been doing an ad hoc job of populating the Athletics categories. I think these are very useful intersections to have. Given the relatively compact numbers involved, I think the two red-linked categories should remain without nationality subcats, rather than following the more populous tennis solution. SFB 20:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While at it, don't forget the comparables like Category:Male judoka, Category:Male taekwondo practitioners as competitions are gender separated and maleness is a unique characteristic required for competition. A lot of this has been started in various places already, such as swimming, athletics, softball. -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. I noticed that other sports separated categories by sex, which is what made me think these categories should be created. Also agree with Sillyfolkboy that nationality subcats are unnecessary for the two categories specified, or at least that they should be subdivided on a case-by-case basis. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 06:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Category:Olympics stubs, you'll see it contains about 600 articles. About 1/3 of those have "2012" somewhere in their title, (i.e., Canoeing at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's slalom C-1, Chad at the 2012 Summer Olympics).

Those articles all contain either {{ Olympics-stub}} or {{ Olympic-stub}} where they should have {{ 2012-Olympic-stub}}.

Is there a bot that can easily update all these articles? I've been doing them by hand slowly, but a bot seems to make a lot more sense.

Alternatively, given that this would likely be a one-time process, is there a simple way someone fairly geeky can babysit a process that does it semi-automatically? If it doesnt involve using Windows, I'm up for it.

Thanks, Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done by User:GoingBatty. Dori ☾ Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 04:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I am just wondering what the convention should be for joint positions (I have already looked on the manual of style and seen no instruction). I ask because some articles display for example =32 but others do not include an equals sign. Should all joint results be shown with some kind of notation like an equals sign or should they be completely neglected? Airelivre ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that ommission. The manual of style is need of an update/review. I think I'm safe to say you can use the equal sign. Parutakupiu ( talk) 19:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are there any established conventions on how to handle sports that were only ever held at one Olympic Games? A lot of these sports have two articles each; one called, for example, Cannon shooting at the Summer Olympics, and another called, for example, Cannon shooting at the 1900 Summer Olympics. In most cases, one of these articles is redundant, so I want to go through and merge/redirect them, but I don't know which title would be preferred. I'd be more inclined to keep the "X at the [year] Summer/Winter Olympics" articles and redirect the broader "X at the Summer/Winter Olympics" ones, but I don't know if that would make them inconsistent with the other "sports at the Olympics" articles (especially since I'd have to rename several articles that only exist at the broader title, like budo and angling). This is probably a trivial issue, and I'm not sure if I'm explaining it very clearly, but any advice would be appreciated. DoctorKubla ( talk) 20:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

In this particular case, you can follow the example of Roller hockey at the 1992 Summer Olympics, a one-time Olympic demonstration sport. It makes no sense to have a '<Sport> at the Summer Olympics' article if that sport was only held at a particular Games, so I think you should keep the year-specific article. Don't mind about sports like budo and angling as they were only for demonstration. Those '<Sport> at the <Season> Olympics' pages should only be used for official sports featured in more than one Olympics. I would also advise you to populate the page with the results of the competition, if available. Parutakupiu ( talk) 20:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! DoctorKubla ( talk) 06:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is detailed in the article for Shin A Lam, but not in the Epee event page - I think it is needed there, otherwise unless you search the specific athlete you would not even see it had occurred. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fencing_at_the_2012_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_%C3%A9p%C3%A9e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.11.226 ( talk) 10:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If anyone wants to start filling out the athletics pages with the start lists they are available from here. I have added entry lists to some of the events happening on the first day already (athletics starts tomorrow/Aug 3). SFB 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ( talk) 11:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, I nominated Brooklyn Kerlin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brooklyn Kerlin... L.tak ( talk) 15:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Does the project use any guidelines? I've been updating the tables for all nations as I see medal events end, and the tables are wildly different. Date formats (dmy or mdy) are one thing, but 1) Some tables don't even have the date cell, 2) some abbreviate August to "Aug" 3) some use {{ sortname}} for the medalists' names, some don't, 4) some use {{ dts}} for the dates, some don't...it gets a bit confusing when one uses the natural shorthand method of copying and pasting code (you can't type all that code out every time). So any guidelines are appreciated. Green-eyed girl ( Talk · Contribs) 14:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:OLYMOSNAT has a section on this. Sortname should be used and dates are encouraged where possible (should of course be possible for the current Games). As for the date format, nothing is specified but I guess {{ dts}} should be used to allow correct sorting (i'm not entirely familiar with the workings of the template though) - Basement12 (T. C) 15:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a guideline for articles belonging to the "Nation at the Year Season Olympics" category (see WP:OLYMOSNAT)- It was created some years ago and it's in need of a revision and bound to be incomplete on some items. This project just has too many pages for the number of active editors, and we have to count with the surges of new editors at the time of the Olympics who are not aware of this project and our effort to make Olympics pages consistent throughout. Parutakupiu ( talk) 15:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed a number of event pages where the "Records" sections (starting Prior to this event, the world and Olympic records were as follows) are being updated with new records as they happen. Am I right in thinking that that's not what's intended? Rawling 4851 15:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Correct, those should not be changed. They help the reader see the evolution of records, in that the previous one was broken. Parutakupiu ( talk) 15:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I thought. I've run close to 3RR on some of these; probably better to leave it for a couple of days. Rawling 4851 15:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if necessary let the Games conclude and things will get calmer. Parutakupiu ( talk) 15:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

On individual nations at the olympics pages, I'm finding the track cycling "Speed (km/h)" field to be a little over emphasised. Being the same size as the time field, it is given equal importance, but really the time field is the crucial one. On the New Zealand at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Track page I have made the speed field smaller, do people think this is better or not?. Rudolph89 ^talk 01:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It appears better imo. The best would be to have a column of its own, but that would stretch unnecessarily the whole results table for a parameter that, as you said, is not the most important. Parutakupiu ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, the discussion on IOC country names was opened in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flag Template#Some lacking data (aliases, military).... -- Virtpedia ( talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many copyright violations in the "Competition format" section of quite a few articles pertaining to events in the 2012 Olympics. If you are interested in helping out, please see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Pedrocampelo. Thanks! Location ( talk) 13:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh goodness. I'll do what I can. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 03:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 03:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:TeamMedalWinner has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 ( talk) 10:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In just about every event at the 2012 games, the Competition format section of the article is a copy and paste from london2012.com. Kevin McE ( talk) 21:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See above - Basement12 (T. C) 21:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cleared now. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 03:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apologies if this is not the correct forum, but the main image used in the article for the London 1948 Games appears to be a user created image. It does not resemble any available photographic examples of posters/images used at the time, nor is it consistent with the official games poster which is widely available online (either style of imagery or typography). The article does not cite a source of the image used.

Given the importance of the article particularly as the London 2012 games are ongoing, could this be looked at by someone with more experience in editing Wikipedia articles than myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.214.238 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong here. The poster/logo for London 1948 appears to be the exact same poster/logo as depicted on the Official Olympics Page for those games. Wesley Mouse 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you're getting confused between the official emblem and the official poster. The image used on the main article, which is also depicted on the IOC's page is the emblem/logo of the games. The other colour image which has a status of the discobolus is the poster, not an official logo, but an advertising poster. As the games progressed over the years emblems, posters, logos started to become the same. Wesley Mouse 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at Gymnastics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's vault and Gymnastics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's artistic qualification articles, trying to understand the results of the vault competitions. There are various notes about falls, but they don't seem to match up to the indicated "penalty" column, in any readily comprehensible way. Maroney fell on her second vault on the final, but the penalty (of 0.3) appears against her first vault. Peña did fall on her first vault, and her penalty appears there, but it's only 0.1. And Peña also fell in the qualifiers, but no penalty at all is noted there. Are these different "grades" of fall, or am I misunderstanding in a more fundamental way? Are the falls instead assessed against the "B score" (seemingly synonymous with "E score", as in "execution")? I do get that a "failure to land" type of fall, like Black's, gets no score at all. If so, what on earth are the penalties?

In order to make this a little more newbie-friendly, can the article make this a but more explicit, either in-line or with suitable internal or external links? (I'll leave a note at WP:gymnastics, though I'm not sure how active that is, relative to here.) 84.203.38.241 ( talk) 01:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that falls are part of the B (or E) score, and penalties are more technical in nature (stepping out of bounds, uniform issues, coaches standing in the wrong place, things like that). See article describing Maroney's first-vault penalty for instance. In the absence of a more general citation (haven't been able to find one quickly, though someone more knowledgeable on the subject probably could) I'm hesitant to add anything myself. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 02:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. That cite looks perfectly usable for that penalty; hopefully other information might be added in due course. 84.203.38.241 ( talk) 05:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Naming principle?. -- Virtpedia ( talk) 08:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried to fix Template:2012OlympicAthleticsSchedule for the Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 100 metres hurdles. I at least have the event in the right day. I am going to go to sleep and it would take me quite some time to fix it any further to get both parts in the A session.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 08:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What a pain in the arse.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone pinged me and asked if {{ United States at the Olympics}} was redundant with the infobox, which I found odd because an infobox is an odd place to put navbox content. I don't know if a decision was made somewhere, but some of these pages are quite long and a navbox could be useful. I am just letting everybody know that the template has been created and placed on the various pages.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 02:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have created {{ Footer USA Volleyball 1996 Summer Olympics}} and {{ Footer USA Volleyball 2012 Summer Olympics}}. I am seeing {{ USA Squad 2008 Men's Olympic Volleyball Championship}} on a lot of the 2012 team member pages. Am I defining the team incorrectly with the templates I have created? Should I delete them?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the existing template could be the wrong way to go. WP:VBALL is the largest project I have seen without a WP:FA or WP:GA, so it would not surprise me if their existing templates are not what we want.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He, as to VBALL's inactivity level, I noticed that last year when working on their only FL, but IMO, team sports should be navboxed by team, sports that are largely individual are best served by putting the entire national team in one navbox... the thing with applying that on volleyball is that there will be no template for the sand folks, we hardly need navboxes to get from Misty May to Kerri Walsh! Courcelles 05:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot fewer templates would be made on a team by team basis, while I could see most national volleyball team templates getting created. Even the 1984, 1988 gold medal teams don't have templates. I also think volleyball might be a sport where people navigate from men to women and beach to indoor. Most of the beach players previously competed indoors.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should create the 2008 national team template and put it up at templates for discussion to get a better feel for what is desirable if there is no feedback here.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 01:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 11#Template:Footer USA Volleyball 2008 Summer Olympics.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Talk:1992_United_States_men's_Olympic_basketball_team#Reqested_move to rename "1992 United States men's Olympic basketball team" to "Dream Team (basketball)".— Bagumba ( talk) 17:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Several articles/events of this year's olympics are not consistent. Once the Games are over we need to spend a week or 2 redoing this. Also sources are missing on most. (eg: fencing doesnt adequately summarise the scored per round, which is more encyclopaedic than the current social media posting of results). So im asking for volunteers for this [short term[] task force and to identify way to make it consistent across displicines and events Lihaas ( talk) 01:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Gymnastics seems fairly inactive, I am bringing this here. Gymnastic team templates such as {{ Olympic champions artistic gymnastics Women TC}} and {{ NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsWomenTC}} both are included in several bio articles such as Gabrielle Douglas even though they only have links to country articles. Either we need to add names to these templates like {{ Footer Olympic Champions 4x200 m Freestyle Relay Men}} and {{ Footer World LC Champions 4x200m Freestyle Men}}, add functionality to them like {{ Footer World Champions 4 x 100 m Men}} and {{ Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Men}} have (see Carl Lewis) or remove them from bio articles.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION PLEASE If I can't get someone interested in discussing which way to handle this issue this week, I am afraid I will never be able to get anyone to discuss this with me. How about a little help/advice.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This could be the worst time to get anyone here to pay attention; with the traffic on Olympic articles any edit to this page currently only flashes up on my watchlist briefly and we have rather a lot of other things to be working on that are more pressing... Anyway, I do agree those templates can be improved; ideally I'd prefer the more thorough style with all champions names listed but can see that could get quite messy with six names per year so I'd settle for the functionality option (I've wikilinked Lewis in your post, hope that's ok) - Basement12 (T. C) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I also prefer the option where the team roster is displayed at the bottom of the navbox according to the Olympics. Much cleaner layout. Parutakupiu ( talk) 23:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

O.K. thanks for the feedback. I am just noticing that the World championship article does not include the individual names. Do we want the Olympic champion template to look different from the World Champion template if I can't find the names of the individual winners?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's two different projects. Ideally, page and template layouts should be as similar as possible, but that should not hinder changes if we see them as positive. I'd say we go ahead with that, despite the rest. Parutakupiu ( talk) 15:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We need one more issue resolved. I had created this version of the men's team template (which has been moved to a different name). Ahmad123987 ( talk · contribs) has since split the template into smaller templates such as {{ Olympic Champions in Artistic Gymnastics - Men's Team All-Around (2008 - 2028)}}, to make the content look less busy. I have some problems with this decision. 1.)I believe it is the only gymnastics template that is split making it look inconsistent with other templates, 2.) not even the women's template is likely to need to be split when expanded (next on my agenda), 3.) I have not noticed any other Olympic sports splitting templates in this manner, 4.) These splits are often driven by interwiki page overload as in the case of acting award templates on pages such as Jack Nicholson and Meryl Streep which are on interwiki heavy bio pages and split because many actors would have well over a dozen templates with over 100 links on average causing them to approach the upper bound on interwiki links on a page, but instead have split templates that have been created uniformly across various template types. Are we better off with a single template split in this manner when it is inconsistent with other similar templates and not mandated by interwiki software limitations. The split reduces the easy of navigation, which is the purpose of the template, IMO.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem with having all winners in one template is the fact that it looks very inconsistent, not to mention extremely long. In the earlier years about 20 gymnasts were part of a country's team, whereas now about 4 are. This makes the template look very disorganized and busy, and the eye doesn't know were to look. Other gymnastic templates have one winner each olympic year, so it is not comparable with this one.

After not only splitting the template, but listing the winners in a more orderly and polished fashion, I created a footer and added it at the bottom of each template, making it very easy to navigate from one template to the other, with a link to the complete list, also at the bottom of each, if users wish to see all winners on one page; the Category: [10], also links all of the templates together. It is done in the same way as the Category: [11], where there are multiple winners every year so instead of listing all of them in one, they've been split in intervals that make sense; And again in this template some years will have 20 winners, others will have 4 unless it remains split. In the Template: [12] for example, the issue of inconsistency is resolved, since the early years of many winners all end up in the same template. In Template: [13], it's consistent again because it's a comparable number of winners each year. The previous template was about four times the the size of Template: [14], so it's not really comparable with other templates of group winners.-- Ahmad123987 ( talk) 07:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Your definition of consistency seems to be size of the template. Mine is based on whether all of the templates in the primary category that the template is grouped in are similarly split (In this case I mean Category:Gymnastics Olympic champions navigational boxes although you have made a subcat for these templates). No other gymnastic templates are split.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 12:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have an issue with doing it the exact same way as the girls: [15], which is a million times better then the way this was before, but still not ideal to navigate from an olympic year to another.-- Ahmad123987 ( talk) 17:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please reread above. We are going to move away from the team without individual names format. I just did the men first because they had no template at all.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 18:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I propose that the women's template look like User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So I guess that idea of conditionally showing the teams only the bottom of the template according to the Games is discarded? I quite preferred it... Parutakupiu ( talk) 19:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Tony's template but think each year/team should start a new line like the template I changed it to under his to make it easier to read. Theworm777 ( talk) 19:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I was going to suggest just that. It certainly improves readability. Parutakupiu ( talk) 19:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I misread the prior responses. I thought I was suppose to create the other kind. No wonder we are having such a big debate. I will redesign both to be like the Athletics team templates as agreed to above.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my problem is Basement12 ( talk · contribs) said he would prefer the swimming team style, but accept the Athletics team style and Parutakupiu ( talk · contribs) said he would prefer the Athletics team style. Then I created the swimming team style. I will mock up the other style.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm OK with the full list option, provided that the output has a good readability. In that sense, I think you could follow Theworm777's suggestion. Parutakupiu ( talk) 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just posted the alternate style, but prefer the full list option for the women. The men have a few large teams in the early years, but I would prefer the full list option myself as well.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 20:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, don't know if there will be more suggestions but it's fine by me to use the full list then. Parutakupiu ( talk) 21:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a bit late to the conversation, but Template:Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Men provides a good example of how to accommodate these problems. SFB 15:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you take a look at the options at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 15:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I like the third option the best. The only thing is the country should be in bold to stand out, but that is very easy to do.-- Ahmad123987 ( talk) 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I also think the third option is the best – the links are limited to the ones that are most important in the context. There's not much reason why Amy Chow should receive the same link prominence as Lavinia Agache on Simona Păucă's article. I think the first two options make the common mistake of providing so many links to the reader that the more pertinent ones are undermined. SFB 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I see my personal choice is gathering more support. In this case, I would also like to officially endorse it. Parutakupiu ( talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I am going to create this with the preferred third option.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 06:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like {{ Olympic champions artistic gymnastics Women TC}} has been converted to take this discussion into account. I had created {{ Olympic Champions in Artistic Gymnastics - Women's Team All-Around}} and was about to use it on many pages. It seems redundant now. I just checked 2012. Have the bios for all years been given the new wrinkle?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What do people think of Olympic medals by teams? To me it seems to be exactly the kind of WP:OR on counting medals that we usual discourage - there don't seem to be any sources for it other than counting them up yourself and the rankings certainly shouldn't be there. I'm inclined to AFD it if there aren't any (reasoned) objections - Basement12 (T. C) 00:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed as it does not seem to be adequately sourced and cuts off at (what appears) to be an arbitrary point. The list will also run into the same issue any medal ranking faces (rank by most golds or most medals). Finally I agree that the emphasis on counting medals is and should be discouraged. Not sure if those rationales will hold up at AFD but it's worth a shot. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I brought up a similar point here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics#China_Olympic_Medal_Table

Evan ( talk) 17:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympic medals by teams - Basement12 (T. C) 17:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this article is needed as a stand-alone. If not, must it be merged into Olympics on NBC? -- George Ho ( talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

See WP:TFD for August 11, where several olympics templates have been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.242 ( talk) 05:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

What we do is being noticed - Mossop, Brian (2011-08-10). "How Wikipedia Won Olympic Gold | Playbook". Wired.com. Retrieved 2012-08-11.

I believe there is a system for "taking note" of such media attention - there's a page where such "press clippings" are displayed? Roger ( talk) 06:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not a member of this project, though I am helping out on the Chinese Taipei at the 2012 Summer Olympics at present. However, there is an inconsistency in the naming of the pages. I am referring to Macedonia at the 2012 Summer Olympics. The official IOC nomenclature is Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, due to opposition from the government of Greece. Shouldn't the names of Olympic pages dealing with Macedonia be changed accordingly to maintain consistency? ludahai 魯大海 ( talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You're probably right. There is a discussion going on here regarding the name of the team from Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The argument is that we go on what the IOC calls the country. To be consistent it should probably be applied to this article as well. I'm open to discussion though. It should also be noted that the name "Macedonia" is a very contentious issue in Wikipedia circles. There has been a long acrimonious debate about the use of this name and I would be prepared for possible push back should you decide to change the name. Those are my two cents. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would be cautious with the naming convention rules on Wikipedia in regards to Macedonia. Many a time on here now I have witnessed users and IPs get their names added to the 1RR list for violating guidelines at WP:NCMAC, some have even had blocks ranging from 1 week to 1 year. It may be advisable to check what is stipulated at NCMAC before inadvertently wandering into territory that may result in your accounts being block. A detailed account of the arbitration decision can be found at WP:ARBMAC2. Wesley Mouse 17:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I just note that I don't think we actually consistently use the official IOC nomenclature for countries/NOCs. The IOC website and the Opening Ceremonies use the official names Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea, while our Olympic articles use the common names North Korea and South Korea. So it looks like we don't have a blanket rule to use the official IOC name for each country. -- JamesAM ( talk) 20:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems very inconsistant that we use Chinese Taipei for Republic of China or Taiwan under the justification that it is the official nomenclature while we don't use the same official nomenclature for Macedonia. Just another thing that makes Wikipedia a bit of a joke in some circles. ludahai 魯大海 ( talk) 23:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe articles relating to the Olympics should use the country names that are designated by the IOC. -- BuffaloChip97 ( talk) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSMAC applies. There is no reason to disambiguate "Macedonia" since only the sovereign nation competes at the Games. As for the full designation, we had a discussion about that years ago, and felt that WP:COMMONNAME is appropriate. We use "Laos", not "Lao People's Democratic Republic"; we use "United States", not "United States of America", and so on. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 16:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just noticed that there is no article for Olympism AKA Olympic Ideal, one of the most important aspects of the olympics. I understand that these days the olympics have more to do with records and fame, but Olympism is above all else, the primary legacy of the Olympic games (in the Olympic Charter the first chapter's second paragraph is dedicated to Olympism). What is exceptionally weird though is that wikipedia does not have an article about it. There is a redirect to the Olympic Charter which is invalid in my opinion, since the olympic charter is not Olympism. The charter tries to protect the olympic ideals. A quick link for Olympism: http://www.pe04.com/olympic/olympia/ideal_o.php Moumouza ( talk) 19:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

De Coubertin's philosophy of Olympism is certainly one worth covering, but most of relevant source material to adequately cover this topic is not freely available and must be paid for. That certainly adds another level of irony to this flawed ideal. SFB 13:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the ideal itself is not flawed, its modern realisation by the IOC is though. Anyway, i will try to see if there is any kind of worthy source,to at least create a start article. Moumouza ( talk) 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be very interesting to have graphs showing the medal count evolution through the ages, on articles such as Greece at the Olympics. Ideally, using mediawiki graphs. Pikolas ( talk) 21:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen in {{ Olympics4x100metres}} older articles have titles like "Athletics at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 x 100 metres relay" (with a letter "x"), while newer articles, with titles like "Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metres relay" use a "times" character.

Also, we could shorten the titles to, say "Women's 4 × 100 metres relay at the 2012 Summer Olympics" or even "2012 Summer Olympics: Women's 4 × 100 metres relay"

Further shortening could be achieved by removing two spaces, so we use "2012 Summer Olympics: Women's 4×100 metres relay", if the MoS allows this.

Here's a length comparison:

Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metres relay

2012 Summer Olympics: Women's 4×100 metres relay

Can we agree which style is best, then get a bot to move the others to a standard-style name? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM#Common mathematical symbols says that × should be spaced when used as a binary operator, so yes I think it would need to be. Would definitely support moving the old ones to use times signs, sure. To be honest I'd prefer to leave the "Athletics at the ..." in the titles, but I don't really have a single good reason for that beyond that's-how-I'd-like-it... so hey, I'll live with whatever. Buttons to Push Buttons ( talk | contribs) 11:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 100 metres relay. The x doesn't make sense, it is just a symbol that is sometimes used when the × is not available. I would keep the Athletics to avoid confusion with other sports. If anything, the relay could be dropped, but for clarity it is better to keep it. Gap9551 ( talk) 11:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the way they are now. It's clear and consistent with the other athletics event pages and even other Olympic sports events pages. The title with the "x" can be used as a redirect to the official page title with "×", as it's easier to type that character. Parutakupiu ( talk) 14:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Gap9551. Besides the "x", I think it is good to maintain the current title format that follows down from the main "SPORT at X Summer Olympics" articles. The sport prefix clearly identifies the event type (from the swimming women's 4x100 metres events, for example) and denotes the organisers and officials of those events (it is more the sport's governing body than the IOC). Dashes are in greater usage than colons in Wikipedia's titles. In punctuation terms, the dash is more appropriate than a colon in the Olympic event respect. SFB 17:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

As the users above me, I think that's the best way too. I have renamed a few articles I have come across by moving them from X → × and wouldn't mind chipping in to move the rest and update the template's links too. Jared Preston ( talk) 18:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

To all the editors who worked tirelessly to keep up with the Summer Olympics I say well done! There were lots of suggestions that had to be sifted through, discussed, adopted or thrown out. There was vandalism to patrol, good-faith edits that had to be scrutinized and at times reverted and a herculean effort undertaken to update thousands of articles as the Games progressed. Your yoeman work does not go unnoticed and I for one sincerely appreciate every person's contributions. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and I for one second your statement - well done everyone. You're all honorary Games Makers of the Wikipedia realm. Roll on Rio 2016 (well after I've finished volunteering at the Paralympics of course). Wesley Mouse 16:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congrats to everyone. The updates were so comprehensive and quick. I think it was leaps and bounds beyond the progress achieved during the 2008 Olympics. And there's plenty more that can be done in the months to keep the London 2012 progress going. I plan to work on articles for individual 2012 Olympians. Many athletes are still red links. Many of the bios are just one sentence. Ideally, we'd get everyone's results into their bios and flesh out more biographical details. -- JamesAM ( talk) 01:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This high-importance article is lacking sources and contains doubtful information. It has been tagged for verification problems since 2008. On a related note the medal does not display correctly in the medal boxes (problem with the image). 85.167.39.6 ( talk) 00:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Should this be used for athletes disqualified because of a team-mate caught doping (e.g. Michael Johnson (sprinter))? What about athletes disqualified before the medal ceremony for various infractions (e.g. Churandy Martina)? Should the reason be indicated somehow, in particular to distinguish between doping (or possibly cheating) and other rule infractions? Some athletes disqualified for other reasons than doping: Dorando Pietri, Frederick Lorz and Ara Abrahamian, with only Lorz cheating. Perhaps "Medal|Disqualified team mate" and "Medal|Disqualified for doping" could be added, leaving more special cases to be explained in the athlete's article. 85.167.39.6 ( talk) 00:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

When adding or updating {{ Infobox Olympic event}}, please use the subtemplates now described in its documentation, as I did here. {{ Plainlist}} improves accessibility (see WP:UBLIST); and the date templates emit metadata which will be used by the hCalendar microformat currently awaiting deployment from the infobox's sandbox. Sorry I didn't find out about the template a fortnight ago! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Is there a better template for date ranges? That looks butt-ugly with "9 August 2012–" rendered on one line and "10 August 2012" rendered on a second line, instead of "9–10 August 2012" rendered on a single line. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No, but you could always ask for one; I suggest on the talk page of {{ Start date}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If not, a better solution might be to identify the dates for heats, semi-finals & finals explicitly in the infobox, which obviates the need for the "Schedule" section in the article now that events have completed. This is the style we've used in past Games' infoboxes for events like that. I think the date range should only apply to events where there are preliminary rounds or matches held over several days. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Now that the Olympics are over I've been going through all the event pages to see any of them are in need of major fixing. In Equestrian I've noticed that the team dressage, individual eventing and team eventing events are far from complete and sadly my knowledge of equestrian is limited and I don't feel fully confident on taking the task. I'm wondering if anyone here has the knowledge of equestian to finish the pages. Worst case scenario is I go to the London 2012 site and attempt to make something based on the results given. JoshMartini007 ( talk) 03:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done as much as I could on those pages, hopefully the results are understandable. JoshMartini007 ( talk) 01:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look too bad to me, but then my knowledge is probably just as limited. Good job - Basement12 (T. C) 01:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What do we want to include now (in August 2012) on the 2016 Games pages? For example, should there be an incomplete calendar of events (see {{ 2016 Summer Olympics calendar}}) immediately below the list of sports? Should there be a "Participants" section that lists only Brazil? Should articles such as Sailing at the 2016 Summer Olympics now have an empty table of medalists (such as in this revision)? Discussion among project members would be welcome. — Andrwsc ( talk · contribs) 05:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The calendar adds nothing and is most likely to be guesswork and crystal balling until much closer to the Games. The table of medalists also serves no purpose yet, aside from looking awful when empty and being full of redlinks. At this stage if the by sport articles are to exist at all I imagine the only concrete facts they can contain are details on the venue and perhaps a simple list of events (if we have sources for them) rather than an uninformative medal table - Basement12 (T. C) 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, unless there's solid information to put in that can be sourced it should be removed. At this point the 2016 Games article is probably just about organization, bid, venue construction, perhaps press-worthy stories that sort of thing. Adding the skeletal framework needed for the actual celebration of the Games four years in advance is unnecessary and makes the article look ridiculous. I appreciate consistency with the other articles as much as anyone but within reason. H1nkles ( talk) _{citius altius fortius} 14:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a calendar of events proposed during the bid phase and I think it is still the official one (see {{ Rio de Janeiro bid schedule for the 2016 Summer Olympics}}). So no need to use an incomplete table. Felipe Menegaz 05:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I wrote an analysis of all the athletics events, based on viewing the video feeds that everybody else can see. I am watching with my own (I'd like to think its an) expert eye. I am trying to put these accomplishments in historical perspective. Admittedly I do not use totally dry language, that information is in the statics below, but when I write anything that might be accusatory or a BLP violation, I provide the sources to show those are not my words speaking. Such is the case of the showpiece athletics event (OK that's my color speaking) Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's 100 metres, a heavily viewed and edited article, I ran into a disagreement with another editor, who first deleted my contribution to the article, then when reverted left the silly tag at the top. I have an aversion to this kind of tag in general. I call some cases of it "vandalism" in my user page, because such accusations deface the look of quality for that article and in a larger sense the work of all editors on wikipedia. I particularly don't like it when the accusation is pointed at my work. But it would be inappropriate for me to remove someone else's criticism. So I request someone else review this article. If there is anything inappropriate I wrote, please fix it and remove the tag, so the article can look good again. Trackinfo ( talk) 03:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have sources? If you want to write original reporting based on watching sporting events, I highly encourage you to wander over to Wikinews where such reporting, when neutrally worded, is allowed based on your own viewing notes. -- LauraHale ( talk) 03:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting I need a source for every word in the article. That would make writing anything on wikipedia virtually impossible. It would essentially be a copyvio. The results are the results and easily sourceable--sources are contained in the articles, I didn't bother to recopy the Olympic results addresses again. So beyond the pure statistics, calculating when someone took the lead of a race, the expression on their face or a gesture they made, I observed that, I wrote that. If you were writing about any other actuality, we use video of the event as a source. Beyond an actual quote when no transcription exists, if someone were to pound a table as they spoke, do we need to find an additional, written, reliable source, reporting that they pounded the table? I think not. You can see the television coverage, in this case, pictures beamed worldwide to an audience of hundreds of millions of people and see where everything comes from. Trackinfo ( talk) 03:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

All facts in the article need sources. I write plenty of sport related articles that cite every fact in the article with out plagiarising or violating copyright. Wikipedia's policies tend to veer more towards making sure something is verifiable over truthful. As I suggested, original reporting on sport is fantastic. Wikipedia just isn't the place for it. You'd be more than welcome at Wikinews where we do original sport reporting. The sports page gives you an idea of some of the original reporting you can do on a Wikimedia project related to sport. You just can't do that original reporting on Wikipedia: You need verifiable and reliable sources. -- LauraHale ( talk) 03:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

@Trackinfo I'm just passing by, these articles are not my thing. But I think Laura has a point. Any time that you feel that you are doing "interpretation" or "analysis" means you are probably on the slippery slope to WP:OR and as a result you need to be really careful to do things by the book. Something like interpreting someone's facial expression on TV would definitely be OR - different cultures may interpret the same expression differently, so how do you know that you are correct unless you are the athlete concerned? Even though something like hitting a table may be relatively factual, it may be a matter of opinion whether it was "pounded" or hit accidentally. Using video as a source is a complex area but in general it is considered a WP:PRIMARY source and so should be used sparingly - and you're running straight up against the policy of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Read both of those links - Wikipedia is mostly about using secondary sources not primary ones.

I'd also agree that your writing style is much more suited to journalism than an encyclopedia that is read by a global audience, who may not even have English as their first language. So Wikinews might be a better outlet for your energy. Your language tends to be on the WP:PEACOCK side, and tends to be a bit slangy and US-specific. For instance in that last diff "blasted" is peacocky, "snuck in for the second automatic qualifier at 9.91" could be replaced with the more formal "qualified second in 9.91s", and "bested" could be replaced with the more international "beat". Le Deluge ( talk) 12:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a community reassessment of an article that might be of interest to this project, Netball and the Olympic Movement. The reassessment can be found here. AIRcorn  (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago I successfully proposed ( See here) the change of names of the articles about Olympic bids. Since 23 March 2009, they use the standard City bid for the Year Season Olympics ( London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics) instead of the previous City Year Olympic bid ( London 2012 Olympic bid). I know assume that the current title standard is, perhaps, too long and, therefore, I would like to propose a change back to the old standard.

Nevertheless, there are some issues to be addressed:

• From 1924 until 1992, both Summer and Winter Olympics were held in the same year. This would make difficult to differentiate articles like Barcelona 1992 Olympic bid and Albertville 1992 Olympic bid.
• From 1968 until 1984, the Summer Paralympics were held in different cities. Same for the Winter Paralympics until 1988. Since then, they are held in the same city, but the practice of “one bid, one city” is an agreement between the IOC and the IPC that will last until 2020 for now. So it is not just an Olympic bid.

Here are some possibilities:

1. London 2012 Olympic bid
2. London 2012 Summer Olympic(s) bid
3. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic bid
4. London 2012 Summer Olympic(s) and Paralympic(s) bid
5. London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics
6. London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics

Then, I think that would be interesting to call a vote to decide on this matter and invite everyone to make any new suggestions in order to reach a naming convention. I will wait for your comments. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 22:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Could anyone, please, take notice of this topic? Please?! Felipe Menegaz 05:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be better to put notices on individual talk pages for those articles for rename, or contact regular contributors to the article. Personally, no preference. -- LauraHale ( talk) 05:55, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Since it involves 33 articles and several templates, I think this is the proper place to discuss the issue. Furthermore, the articles' talk pages are not frequently visited... Regards; Felipe Menegaz 06:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the current naming style or option six that adds reference to the Paralympics. Ideally we would should add mention of the Paralympics to the title but I can see that this could make them too long and make them inconsistent with articles before the joint hosting occured, so it may be more practical to omit it. I would oppose any option that removed Summer/Winter from the title for the confusion it may cause for years where both took place - Basement12 (T. C) 09:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite a generalized title, everything would be detailed within the article itself and usually linked from proper sections/articles about the specific Games and season. Felipe Menegaz 19:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox Olympic bid

I also proposed changes on {{ Infobox Olympic bid}}. Please, leave your comments at Template talk:Infobox Olympic bid#Visual changes. Cheers; Felipe Menegaz 01:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've had a skim through the archives and not seen this mentioned, but feel free to point me to any previous discussions. Looking at my tickets to both the London stadium and the rowing, they both say "You agree that any images, videos or sound recordings of the Games taken by you may only be used for private and domestic purposes and cannot be used for any commercial purposes, whether on the Internet or otherwise." Obviously this wouldn't apply to the non-ticketed events, except for things like the openwater swimming which took place in Royal Parks which have their own restrictions on photography (you pretty much need to pay for a licence to take photos for anything other than personal use).
I suspect there's large swathes of images taken at the Games which are kicking round Wikipedia on relatively permissive licences allowing commercial use when they shouldn't. I'd be particularly wary of images grabbed off Flickr. Worse, I suspect there's a lot of those images on Commons, which is somewhere they don't belong if they can't be used commercially. An example is File:Usain Bolt 2012 Olympics 1.jpg, the main photo on Usain Bolt. This obviously begs the question - were such conditions imposed on ticketholders at previous Games? If so (and I suspect they were), then there may be a lot more images with improper licences. Thoughts anyone? Le Deluge ( talk) 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Inside the venue, they cannot be released under a commercial license. (This also holds true for media organisations.) Outside Olympic venues, it is okay. I know a few images have already been deleted because of this. : / -- LauraHale ( talk) 03:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you have advice from (or are) an English lawyer, I'd be careful of making assertions like that in your first sentence. Such terms may not be legally binding, and a contract with the photographer may or may not exist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The ticket and accreditation explicitly state photos cannot be used for commercially. This repeats that. Do you have any evidence that suggest the conditions of entry are not legally AND/OR ethically binding? -- LauraHale ( talk) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong question (since no-one can prove a negative). Do you have any evidence that they are? Further, do you have any evidence that all (or any individual one of) the photographers concerned used such a ticket? Further: that's not a copyright restriction. Further: printing something on a ticket doesn't make it legally valid. Further: see the discussion of crown copyright images, in which you were a party, on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-10-12/In_the_news for discussion based on 2008. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 04:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

See my reply at WP:MCQ#Licences on Olympic images. This has also been discussed at various places over at Commons. In short: if you find an image on Flickr which is available under a free licence, then the free licence applies unless the photo contains some artwork which is only displayed temporarily. However, if you wish to upload your own photos, note that the IOC may sue you personally for contractual violation. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there's not an article for Paralympics classifications? [16] -- 76.65.128.252 ( talk) 11:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Lugnuts ( talk) 13:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread retitled from "Standardizing [Country] at the Olympics".

Just off the top of the list, looking at the first two articles in this series, Afghanistan at the Olympics and Albania at the Olympics I'm seeing vastly different styles of summary tables. I'm sure there must be other inconsistencies, unfortunately, but is anyone working on standardizing these? I especially like the summary table used in Australia at the Olympics, the Summer table. Hopefully, all articles can be brought into that format. Jmj713 ( talk) 05:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess they all look different, due to the number of editors involved. Lots of the earlier years are a mixture of full results to just stubs stating x country competed at y games. Agree that they should all look the same, but just adding the sports is a big job! Lugnuts ( talk) 12:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be a template settled on and instituted throughout. After going quickly through all such articles, many don't have a summary table, and some have a Summer table, but are missing a Winter table. Jmj713 ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

[I am revising the heading of this section from Standardizing [Country] at the Olympics to Standardizing <Country> at the Olympics, in harmony with WP:TPOC (point 13: Section headings). Square brackets hinder links to section headings in archives. See User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page one and User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Link test page two.

— Wavelength ( talk) 16:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]

Sorry about that. On the topic at hand, I've begun doing some work by bringing in line Afghanistan at the Olympics, Algeria at the Olympics, and Australia at the Olympics. Jmj713 ( talk) 17:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Oops! Now the arrow link before the section heading in the watchlist does not go directly to the section, and the word "Country" does not appear in the watchlist. I apologize for that inconvenience. I am revising the section heading again, to Standardizing "(Country) at the Olympics".

— Wavelength ( talk) 17:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So, anyone willing to assist me with bringing these articles in line with the above? I believe the template is a very good one, but obviously a lot of work for just one person. I'll slowly go through them all alphabetically in time, adding each to my watchlist (as I'm already seeing vandalism to the three I've already completed, Afghanistan, Algeria, and Australia). Hopefully, others will want to join in. Jmj713 ( talk) 19:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm going by the List of IOC country codes and I've just finished the letter A. Jmj713 ( talk) 17:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Letter B is almost done, except Brazil and Bulgaria. Jmj713 ( talk) 04:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I've started doing 2004 on my own. I'm to the G's now, as of 9/1/2012. All the tables will look the same when (if?) I finish. Have done my best to mirror what I saw being done for the 2012 games. I've left any text that others put there before me. JDBear ( talk) 05:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doing the single years, but the overview articles, such as Armenia at the Olympics. Completed A and B, but taking a break right now for the most part. If anyone would like to collaborate, that would be great! Jmj713 ( talk) 22:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

(Country) at the 2012 Summer Olympics

Cf. Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics, Chinese Taipei at the 2012 Summer Olympics, Bhutan at the 2012 Summer Olympics.

1. Should there be those little pictures of the sports by the section headings?
2. Should these pictures have image links, or be unclickable?

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 11:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:MOSHEAD says no images in section headers. -- Jonel ( Speak to me) 12:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so is there a quick (automated) way to remove them, or does this have to be done manually and laboriously? It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 18:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)