Archives

1, 2, 3

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting my edit at 2018 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships. I didn't realize that there were separate articles for the top level championship and the championship as a whole. I'll keep this in mind when editing articles for IIHF tournaments in the future. (Big game tonight! Go Canada Go!) Jith12 (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Winter Olympics will held. Simon 1996 (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Edelman has been confirmed as competing in the 2018 Olympics. see here: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Sports/Blue-and-white-delegation-Pyeongchang-reaches-10-athletes-538183

Additionally, as he is competing in a modern Olympic games, he meets notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlidingSportsJunkie (talk • contribs) 06:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Israel Olympic committee has confirmed Edelman's inclusion: https://www.facebook.com/IsraelOlympicCommittee/posts/1634594579934780 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlidingSportsJunkie (talk • contribs) 03:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you are aware of how the sliding sports qualification system works, but as the Pyeongchang Olympic cycle removed initial world rank as a necessity for minimum inclusion, and instead went to a listed quota system, it is more appropriate and relevant to include the actual quota position. As the World Rank is not taken into account in qualification and only quota position of the list-3 is, please be aware that removing mention of world rank after the 7th qualifying race is pertinent to relevance. If it is helpful, refer to the IBSF qualification guidelines to familiarize yourself with this process.

I noticed you PRODed a couple countries which qualified for the Winter Olympics but would not be participating. Do you have any objection to discussing these countries briefly either in the main article for the Games or in the concerns and controversies article, and redirecting those pages there instead of deleting? That's what was done with Puerto Rico at the 2014 Winter Olympics, South Africa at the 2014 Winter Olympics, and Algeria at the 2014 Winter Olympics after those countries all qualified but did not enter. We could possibly create the Cayman page as a redirect too since they did qualify someone, who later retired. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama: No objection at all. I figured since a PROD lasts a week, if there was a better way then there would be ample time to address that. I like the notion of having some mention of nations that qualified athletes but did not participate. Good idea to include the Caymans as well.18abruce (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize those links existed. I will go ahead and remove the deletion tags of the pages. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason I reduced the number was because, as you'll see from the note above the list of competitors, Jason Rüesch was unable to travel to the Olympics for health reasons and there wasn't a replacement (all info is in the source). Maybe what's happened is the official lists of athletes were published before some of the injuries occurred that prevented athletes attending and not updated properly (Erik Guay also pulled out late so that may be the reason for the other discrepancy you mentioned). I wasn't sure whether they still technically counted as attending even though they aren't but having seen Marco Tadé removed along the same lines I thought I should remove Rüesch too. Hope that's clear enough! 6seabou (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@6seabou: Very clear thank you. Switzerland actually returned the quota for Tadé and South Korea filled it. I think the Rüesch situation is like Canada's Guay, interesting that their quotas weren't returned since Sweden and Togo did just two days ago and other nations took those quotas. Who knows, and I don't think there is a "right" answer for how to account for them, so if an editor has a reason I tend to just leave it the way it is. Thanks again.18abruce (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can u explain how it works in hockey? how can russia get iihf points competing with an olympic flag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigggggggs (talk • contribs) 04:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man :D Honestly, I think the whole thing is merely of academic interest. I'm pretty sure most of the "extra people" listed are athletes registered so they can serve as reserves in case someone gets sick. That explains both why they're listed on IOC's (and the Winter Olympics) site, and why they're not listed by SOC. The only person I'm unsure about is Felix Monsen. The alpine team nominated him to SOC, so it's possible SOC registered him with IOC while deciding if they wanted to send him or not (and then eventually decided not to). Anyways, I don't think any of the 8 people will get to participate in the olympics unless an illness takes out quite a few of the planned participants. -- Lejman (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late answer. But i'm not sure how it works/counts. It is the russian team afterall, so i guess they get the points. Kante4 (talk) 13:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the link you posted only applies to the women's tournament at the moment. The men's tournament is still TBD.

As for the second revert, the Olympic status is banned, even if IIHF would not consider it as such. I will re-edit it but add a source.

Please sign your talk edits, even if it's just meant as a private message. :) 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:3:7431 (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to add my input here too. The chart does not determine status, it determines participation. The IIHF considers Russia as participating in the Olympics as they met the IIHF standard for qualifying for the Olympics. The page has to do with IIHF not the IOC. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. ;) Late? 7am here and cheering for Germany. :D Kante4 (talk) 06:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Work through it. ;) Just a few more minutes. Kante4 (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No? Why, what is going on? Kante4 (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i checked the livestream to see what's up and it was right on time, sadly. Kuwait already with just 19 players. Kante4 (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just glad there is a qualification tournament, 2015 was a joke. Lot to edit in those tournaments. Kante4 (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 18abruce, Concerning the diff. Is this prooflink enough for my edit to be valid?

BR, --Ds02006 (talk) 08:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the dates didn’t make sense, so I switched them around Here is what I mean: RUS VS FRA = 20:15 EST SWE VS BLR = 16:15 EST

Typerr (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah i am unsure aswell but decided to leave it like it was. Not sure what is the best way too... Kante4 (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any info why he was disqualified? Kante4 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I apologize for the passive aggressive tone in my edit summary (it wasn't intentional, but I was aware it could be construed that way). I don't see it being as an issue, myself. I doubt anyone will care enough. My main concern is with ensuring the standings reflect the actual tiebreaker rules if we're going to have a ranking of third place teams. (And this may be seen as original research, as the WCF isn't doing this, but then again it's not as if we're making it up as we go along as long as we consistently apply the tiebreaker rules). Anyways, I think it's helpful having the ranking in there, as long as it's done properly. Cheers. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ice hockey at the 2022 Winter Olympics until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 01:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings 18abruce, and thanks for your previous edits regarding 2002, 1998, 1980 (and maybe others I haven't spotted).

Ultimately, I would like all the Wikipedia (English) pages with disparate rankings to display both the IOC and IIHF rankings. This obviously includes 1980, 1984, 1998 and 2002, but may also include 1920, 1924, 1928, 1936, and possibly even 1948.

I admit my bias in favor of the IOC rankings. My reasons are:

1. Each ice hockey tournament at the Olympics is first and foremost an Olympic event, and the IIHF has secondary importance. Each competition and each competitor is subject to the additional rules (flags, anthems, diplomas, conduct, citizenship, anti-doping, gender) imposed by the IOC--rules that may not apply at other IIHF competitions.

2. Every time we recognize the 1992 champions as the "Unified Team" and the 2018 champions as "Olympic Athletes of Russia," we are implicitly endorsing IOC preeminence. The IIHF recognizes simply "Russia" as the champions in these years; and in fact, credits the seven Soviet gold medals to Russia, giving them a total of nine.

But I also recognize the IIHF rankings, which in 1998 were used to determine the top six seeds for 2002; and in 2002, were used to award 1/6 of the ranking points used in determining the seeding for the 2006 Olympics. I would say that prior to 1998, the IIHF rankings had lesser importance; if the IIHF wanted to rank teams 1-12 in 1980 and 1984, they certainly could have done so with additional classification games (there was no NHL presence to oppose such a plan), but this was not considered important at the time.

Upon viewing many websites, I would endorse "sports-reference.com" as the most reliable source for the IOC rankings (yes, better than the IOC website itself). I only wish the IIHF media guide were available free online.

So next question... How does the IIHF rank the teams in 1936? The IOC ranks 2 teams (Germany, Sweden) in 5th place, 2 in 7th, 4 in 9th and 3 in 13th.

Thanks again for all your contributions to Wikipedia! Joel225sp (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel225sp: Thank you for all the communication. The question of Russia as it relates to 1992 and 2018 is difficult. I have no firm opinion on how to categorize them. The IIHF records are for their members so them calling 2018 'Russia' I have no issue with since the Russian Hockey Federation was not barred from the Olympics, but the Olympic Federation was. I really think it is up to us to look at how third parties group them, but I do not have a strong opinion on it regardless.

I have modified or notated several Olympic hockey standings tables with the best information that I have available. I am unhappy with the 1928 standings but do not have a better solution right now, the IIHF records are a mess and sports-reference.com's standings don't make much sense either. It would not bother me a bit if someone changed it though. The 1936 tournament appears to have full agreement between the IOC and the IIHF, both officially list the standings as we do. I use Wallechinsky's book on the Olympics for much of the IOC standings, but they are incomplete there.18abruce (talk) 21:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I just obtained the 2019 IIHF book, and it is indeed a mess. There are peculiarities in the rankings that negatively affect Austria in both 1928 and 1984. In 1928, Austria is somehow co-ranked 7th with Belgium, and this is the only tied position that year. In 1984, Austria is co-ranked 11th with Yugoslavia, and Norway is inexplicably ranked 10th, despite Norway finishing behind Austria in group play. And these discrepancies are consistent throughout this edition of the book (unlike the edition you have which gives different rankings in different places). It's a shame the IIHF doesn't respond to your inquiries as you mentioned in a different post.

I recommend keeping all the "IIHF" rankings as they are on the Wikipedia pages of each tournament, with the exception of 1948. The 2019 IIHF book makes no mention of the controversy of the 1948 American teams. It simply lists Team USA as 4th place--not only for the World Championships, but for the Olympics as well.

For the "IOC" rankings, I am somewhat torn on this. I prefer to list teams as tied for positions (according to sports-reference.com and sometimes on hhof.com and other sites) than to list them with no ranking at all. For the interwar period, one clue I have found is the March 1984 edition of "Olympic Review," featuring the article "Ice Hockey and Olympism," in which there is a footnote indicating that four teams were ranked for the 1920 Games. From this, someone might argue that only the four teams that reached the medal round were ranked by the IOC for all the Games of the interwar period. And that Germany & Sweden's bronze medals at the 1936 "European Championship" were not the concern of the IOC, so those teams can remain unranked also. Perhaps we will learn more when (or if) the IOC database is completely updated. Or perhaps that will just raise more questions!Joel225sp (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding disqualifications, the IOC and IIHF are consistent in their handling of 1948 and 2014 (women). The IOC leaves 4th place vacant in 1948 and 6th place vacant in 2014 (women). The IIHF ignores the disqualifications, listing USA as 4th place in 1948 and RUS as 6th place in 2014 (women). In none of those cases are any teams moved up one spot.Joel225sp (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on 2014, I was suspicious that they would not adjust the standings as they never adjusted the IIHF World Ranking. The 1948 case is different as the IOC and IIHF were at odds to begin with and the IIHF did not agree with the IOC decision. The IOC itself did not really carry through because they declared that none of the USA games would count, yet they still did in official IOC standings, just with the USA removed.18abruce (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thank you for all the updates. It seems the IIHF follows the IOC rules during the Games themselves, but does what they want to in terms of record keeping. I am working on an update of the "participating nations" chart on the main "Ice Hockey at the Olympics" page, and it should be ready to post soon. I plan to include both the IOC and IIHF rankings (when they disagree), and also the instances when teams competed under IOC names (EUA, EUN, OAR), but are recognized by the IIHF under IIHF names (FRG, RUS). The only thing I hesitate on is the possibility that the IOC database may at some time indicate that only four teams were ranked in 1936. Other than that, I am pretty confident with the information. I plan to add a row at the bottom of the chart for citations.Joel225sp (talk) 18:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the chart on the "Ice Hockey at the Olympics" page, added citations, but didn't add an extra row for citations. Feel free to edit it further (or revert it, if need be). Kind regards.Joel225sp (talk) 20:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me, I added a brief note that should help.18abruce (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So two years have gone by... Prior to the OG in Tokyo, the IOC relaunched their website. The old olympic.org now redirects to olympics.com, and with it comes a major update of the IOC database. (I do recall checking it in Spring 2021 and there was no update then.) We now know that for 1920, the IOC recognizes the three winless teams as equal fifth--this was previously unclear. We see that the IOC results for 1936 are in agreement with the IIHF--this was also previously unclear. We see that the IOC has changed their position regarding 1924 and 1928, and now ranks all participating teams, not just the four finalists. And the big one--the IOC has advanced teams one position that were previously listed behind a disqualified team. This affects 1948 men and 2014 women. I have adjusted the chart accordingly. Maybe someday I'll adjust pages for the individual years.

Thanks for your ongoing commitment to this site.Joel225sp (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel225sp: Thank you for following up on these concerns, it is much appreciated. The IIHF did eventually amend their records for 2014, in November 2019. Wouldn't want them to rush into anything I guess, lol.18abruce (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear of that update, thanks! I plan to work on the 1936 page soon. Have a great 2023! Joel225sp (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i just had an edit conflict and copied my edit and added yours, but forgot to correct the goalie. Kante4 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know I knew he did...I must have been falling asleep by that point in the afternoon. For some reason I was thinking about 200 games. Good catch. -DJSasso (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are WP:QUACK sounds at Ice hockey at the 1952 Winter Olympics. Would you have a look? Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 02:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you get time, recent edits at René Fasel and International Ice Hockey Federation need to be looked at for neutrality and relevance. Please respond on those corresponding talk pages. Flibirigit (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm curious as to how you believe this subject passes WP:NHOCKEY as I'm not seeing how they meet any prong. None of the leagues they've played in would pass and he hasn't played a senior level international event. I typically would just move this back to draftspace, but I'm reaching out first in case I missed something.

Also, try to avoid doing a hard move of an AfC article like you did. There's a lot of stuff on the backend that needs to be done for cleanup and record keeping for the AfC process, none of which was done. If it's an area that you're not too familiar with, please reach out next time to WT:AFC and they'll be glad to help. I'm happy to do the housekeeping, but I first ask that you establish how this person passes WP:NHOCKEY as I wouldn't want to waste my time on cleanup on a moot matter. Cheers :) Sulfurboy (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: He satisfies criteria no. 1 by playing in the Czech Extraliga. I see someone has decided to move it back to draft so please fix this. I will add the top level Czech team he plays for, the sources in the article confirm it.18abruce (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: And thank you for using good manners and assuming good faith, unlike another involved editor.18abruce (talk) 13:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18abruce, NP, just add that info and when it's added ping me to either here or the page and I'll publish it. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: I added some content that should help. Sorry for the hard move, previously I discovered that it precipitated much quicker action, which is not exactly a great excuse I suppose. I also did not realize how many times this article had been created and deleted, so I did not appreciate the need for added caution. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18abruce, If you have another article like this you want to move, just ping me to it. I'm inactive at times, but always monitor my email and would see your ping. Just make sure it's clear as day which prong they meet. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about the countries current standings? I have Canada at 8 individual quotas + no Singapore among other changes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: If you mean the men's: Canada's 3rd place finishers in the 1000m and 1500m are at 9 (Dubois and Hamelin) and 5 (Dion and Dandjinou) points respectively after two races, well out qualification places so no chance they could have 8 individual quotas. The women do indeed have 8. As for Singapore, they are 18th in the relay after 2 races, with the top 8 qualifying, what is the problem with displaying them as 10th in 'next available NOCs'? I was checking everything again before posting the individual distances and then got busy, hopefully will get it done today or tomorrow.18abruce (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see three Canadians in the top 32/36 of the men's 1000/1500, which is why I wasn't sure. I was confused with the table, which is why I asked about Singapore. I wasn't sure if you were just listing relay countries. Makes sense now, thanks for clearing it up! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits, while I agree Netherlands is not attending the 2021 Olympic Qualification Event – Curling for the Women's and Mixed Doubles Events, I do respectfully believe they did qualify under the rules listed on the World Curling Federation Website here: https://worldcurling.org/olympic-qualification and as such I believe it should be noted on the wikipedia page. In 2018, Curling at the 2018 Winter Olympics – Qualification event the host country Czech Republic qualified for the Men's and Women's event as the hosts, so there is precedent. Edwyth (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwyth: I disagree, neither the WCF, nor third party reporting named them as either a qualifier or a participant. The new rules from this fall's congress have abandoned host qualifiers nearly completely, I don't see how a page from last spring indicates that teams that never were going to participate should be included.18abruce (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, I think the reason that no third party source mentioned the Netherlands participating in the Women's and Mixed Doubles events is because the Netherlands decided to not send a team for those events and was thus overlooked. It is my belief that the Netherlands did in fact qualify as the Host of this event and it seems odd to me that, the World Curling Federation could suddenly take that away without some kind of formal announcement. This honestly isn't that important, but I wanted to voice my reading of the rules. Thank you for your hard work.Edwyth (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I emailed the World Curling Federation and this was their response:

Dear Edward,

Thank you for your enquiry.

Please find below a link to the OQE 2021 Qualification rules on our website: https://worldcurling.org/olympic-qualification/

The link to the Olympic Winter Games Beijing 2022 Qualification procedure (7 April 2021) is also there.

Kind regards,

Gill AMATT

WORLD CURLING FEDERATION

3 Atholl Crescent

Perth PH1 5NG

Scotland, UK

And that link includes "The host National Olympic Committee of the Olympic Qualification Event" Edwyth (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwyth: They also fail to explain why the men's tournament was going to have 9 participants (when the rules say 10) and the women's only 9. They did not answer to the issue at all but simply regurgitated an out of date page that does not match their September 10 announcement. By the September congress they also changed their rules for host inclusion in tournaments. I maintain that Netherlands women or mixed doubles were never going to be included, by the WCFs own admission and statement. Nothing you have presented actually changes that. Additionally, the September 10 statement does not say that they qualify as host, if specifically says that two qualifiers and seven best, which includes the men but not the women. A similar problem is the world qualification tournament and our statement of who qualifies from the euros. It is nonsense, but the WCF offers no explanation so we are left to make it up from out of date rule pages.18abruce (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding the list you have published of the Individual distances ranking. Rule 284, paragraph 4 states that "These SOQCs will be calculated following the same Rules and principles as the ISU World Cup Short Track Speed Skating classifications, i.e. using the World Cup points earned at the designated World Cup Competitions." Therefore, I understand that the list should be the same as the "World Cup Classification by discipline" published in shorttrack.sportresult.com. However, the lists aren't the same. What am I missing in terms of the calculation of Starting places? Nimrodbr (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimrodbr: The difference is that for Olympic qualification the world cup points are not earned for individuals, but for NOCs. So for China in the men's 500m, the first listing is the total for the Chinese skater who has come first in each race, (Wu 5120 + Ren 8000 + Ren 6400), the score for the 2nd chinese entry would be the total for who has been their 2nd best each time (Ren 3277 + Wu 1074 + Wu 5120), and third would be (Sun 687 + Yu 144 + Yu 281).18abruce (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the explanation. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the starting place ranking tables according to my calculation. As for Women's event it was completely same with you, but as for Men's one, there were differences beteween us. I want you to double-check your calculation and see what makes the differences. I also revised tables about quotas, which I'm pretty sure is correct. For either modification, if you find the reason why there were errors with you, or the reason why I am wrong and what you initially wrote was right, comment here (user talk of your page) and please also visit my user page and comment again so that I can read it asap. Thanks a lot for your contribution and effort to deliver accurate information :) --Shorttracker1201 (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shorttracker1201:The positional changes in the three men's races were good catches, thank you. I accidentally swapped a couple of results. I found one more that did not affect ranking as well. However, I don't see why you would not grant the final men's quota to Poland so that they could be the 12th mixed relay team, that allocation stage happens before it would go to Italy I believe.18abruce (talk) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@18abruce:You were right! I modified some errors. Now Poland gets its additional quota for male to participate in the mixed team relay and I withdrew an additional male quota allocated to Italy before. Thanks for your advice. Shorttracker1201 (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can you explain why the short track qualification standings for olympics are not the same as those on the isu site:

example: Dion of Canada is first in the 1000m world cup standings and world ranking but appear 2nd in the standings on Wikipedia. What is the source of the quotas. Looks like all these standings are unconform. Waiting for your answer. Best regards, TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is a couple of questions above. Simply, the same as the previous two Olympics, Dion does not qualify for the Olympics his NOC does. Each country scores for each race, not individuals. So in the 1000m Canada's first qualifier has a score of 20800 while South Korea's first qualifier has a score of 23277.18abruce (talk)

Ok, and where do you seeing that? Is there any official quota list? Thks. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for official quota links, thks. TheGreenGiant23 (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like to ask you if you're sure about the quotas for the Luge competitions at the 2022 Winter Olympics? Because according to my calculations Moldova and Ireland qualify a sled in the women's event instead of Bulgaria and New Zealand. Or there's something I am missing in the calculations? Ivaneurope (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivaneurope:They definitely didn't before this weeks results, but a quick look tells me that likely Moldova has moved up. I am going to go through it in detail shortly.18abruce (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine's Tunytska moved into top 32 so one less singles. Since it is the best four results counting, and the tie-breaker is the best single result, New Zealand would still be the next one for sure though, not Ireland.18abruce (talk) 13:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. It is difficult to be honest to determine how many quotas a NOC receives in luge without making the calculations ourselves unlike the skiing sports and biathlon.Ivaneurope (talk) 13:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

True, and they changed the rules during qualification. Bobsleigh is going to be way worse, especially the women's.18abruce (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing I've noticed is that in the nations that need an additional quota secton for the Team Relay event Sweden is listed as one of those. The things is that while Sweden does have athletes in both the men's and women's events, they don't have any eligible participants in the doubles event meaning that they can't form a relay anyway. Thus, I don't think it'd be appropriate to list Sweden in this section. Ivaneurope (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivaneurope:The reason I put them there is because I just listed every NOC that needed one more quota, not necessarily who would receive one. Removing it is fine, I don't have a strong opinion about it either way.18abruce (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

I saw that you mentioned that Israel had declined one quota for alpine skiing. Since the statements of the members of the Olympic Committee in Israel that I know so far have been that if there is a third quota, it has not yet been decided who will be the third representative, and that there is no intention to decline the quota. I would love to understand based on what you wrote it down. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nimrodbr:That is what the FIS says: [1]. I did not think that they would post information that was not final, the chart is meant to show the confirmed responses and it indicates that Israel is only using two. Since they still had time to communicate with the FIS, responding now seems rather clear what their intention is.18abruce (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although someone else believes that a similar thing is happening in Ski jumping where the response could change. Put it back if you like, it won't bother me at all.18abruce (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was not sure if it was based on this or other sources. They may indeed have made a different decision from their past statements. We'll have to wait and see if they explain it in a press release or not. Anyway, I will not change it and I will wait to see if it changes in the FIS data or if a press release comes out in the coming days. Nimrodbr (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that we don't know if the NOC will confirm the unconfirmed quotas after all or rescind them. I'd propose the following - to put footnotes about NOC's confirming only some quotas. Ivaneurope (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do know, they are already reallocating them. I am offline for a while do what you wish.18abruce (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have not yet issued a press release. But I realized that indeed the extra quota was not approved in light of national criteria that the athletes did not meet. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heyho, hope you are well. With the 2022 Division I tournaments, i would guess no men team and no women team (Group A) gets relegated as then there would be just five teams next year. You have any info? Kante4 (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023 IIHF Women's World Championship, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caroline Harvey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 18abruce. I need your help with this article: 2023 IIHF World U18 Championship Division II. It's gonna be draftified in about five days. You rescued the 2023 IIHF World U18 Championship Division III article a month ago, so I hope you will succeed this time, too. Thanks a lot, Maiō T. (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here you added the H2H and in the Division III article not? I'm confused. I was going for the GS in the II article aswell but after your edit i changed it in the III article. :D Kante4 (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: In the Division III article one team was no longer tied but the other two still were, so their H2H was needed instead of progressing to the next tie-breaker. In the Division II article when one tie was finally broken, all were broken, so it stops there.18abruce (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, never thought about it that way. Kante4 (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kante4: And sorry I said the articles backwards, but I think you got what I meant (Division III was settled on GS, Divsion II GD, then H2H).18abruce (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that i figured out myself, wohoo. :D Thanks for your work as always. Kante4 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Ice hockey at the 2026 Winter Olympics – Men's qualification as the IIHF published their infos. Kante4 (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will take a look soon.18abruce (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About Latvia. You listed 27 qualified athletes so far. 25 of them are hockey players, Ok, but who are the other two? Any source? Thank you. --OskarsC (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OskarsC: I have been tracking Alpine skiiers who have met the olympic standard and noted NOCs that have at least one male or one female. Valters Berzins (and others) have easily met the standard assuring Latvia of at least one male alpine skiier, likewise Sofija Fjodorova in women's.18abruce (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry didn't see you already added France and Germany, my fault. I had the page tab open last night and didn't refresh. Edwyth (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Just wanna say thanks, for keeping an eye on & updating, the stats of the lower divisions, in IIHF tournaments. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Well thanks, it is an enjoyable diversion for me.18abruce (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent content disgreement at List of IIHF World Championship medalists seems likely. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Flibirigit: I will keep an eye this foolishness, IIHF is clear and specific about it at least.18abruce (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2025 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships – Division I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dániel Kiss.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]