Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Saint Petersburg bid for the 1994 Winter Olympics doesn't appear to be a thing. It's not listed at the sourced link and the city at the time of the bid would have been Leningrad. Google also revealed nothing. What gives? Jmj713 (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

May be this is smth which in the end has not been submitted. I lived in Russia at the time, and I do not remember anything related to the bid - though there must have been a lot of publicity for a real bid.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the creator of the article got confused with the fact St Petersburg actually bid for the 2004 Summer Games? From what this source verifies, 11 cities became candidates for the 2004 Games bid, and the IOC had to reduce it down to 5 for the voting phase. This online book details the ten other cities that bid for 2004 games alongside Athens. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but 2004 was for the Summer Olympics, The Kirovsk venues detailed in the articles are ski pistes, they are only suitable for the Winter Olympics. Kavgolovo is a ski training base.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps it was the 1994 Goodwill Games of which St Petersburg hosted. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Either way, the noted article needs to be nominated for speedy deletion using the WP:CSD#G3 rationale. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Just look at all of the other hoax articles that User talk:O'zqon created and they ended up being deleted swiftly. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Since I happen to be an administrator, this one went the same way.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: nice work! I've checked to find where the hoax article had been linked to and removed them all accordingly. Looks like a job well done between all of us. Teamwork at its purest. Wes Mouse ✒ 19:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I usually check backlinks myself, but I was distracted by smth this time.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(Also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics) I notice that some (though not all) of the Olympic decathlon champions have a succession box on their pages for holders of the title "World's Greatest Athlete". Since this is a completely unofficial title, and synonymous with the less ambiguous "Olympic decathlon champion", might I suggest either that these succession boxes be renamed, or that they be removed altogether, since they are merely duplicating information also provided by Template:Footer Olympic Champions Decathlon? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

After discussion at the other talk page, the boxes have been removed. --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 23:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to bring to the project's attention that there's an ongoing discussion regarding {{Olympic Games}} where the overall historical consensus has always been to omit city names from the navigation template for ease of parsing. Looking over the template's edit and talk history, this topic has come up several times, but historically, we've mostly kept years only. I would like some finality with the template to be established going forward, if anyone would care to weigh in. Jmj713 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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/2022 Winter Olympics events until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Hektor (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

In the Korean version of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangneung_Oval, the given name is Gyeongpo Oval (강릉 스피드 스케이팅 경기장 and not 경포 타원형 경기장). I consequently think the title of the article should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.230.185.68 (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• See here. Thanks. Hektor (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion here. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Now closed. Now at close review. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

i like to get help any kind ways — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.251.226 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Art competitions at the Olympic Games → Art competitions at the Summer Olympics – The only [sport] at the Olympics Games articles we have are Ice hockey at the Olympic Games and Figure skating at the Olympic Games. This is because these sports were contested at both the Summer and Winter Games. The art competitions were never contested at the Winter Games only at the seven editions of the Summer Games. Therefore, to comply with naming convention, I recommend the move. Note: the associated category Category:Art competitions at the Olympic Games would be moved as well. Thoughts? -- Ianblair23 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

• Endorse per Ian's logic. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support totally makes sense. Gap9551 (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks guys! -- Ianblair23 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello guys,

I'm from Brazil and I'm a member/coordinator of the Wikimedia Brazilian Group of Education and Research. Since the next Olympics will be here in my city, I would like to see if I can help with any info or support. My idea is to replicate the WikiProject Olympics at pt.wiki to improve all informations regarding the summer games in our native language. Our group will have a meeting during the next week to plan better our initiatives here for the next year. Ping me if you need any local support/info. Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess up-to-date photos of venues as they finish or transform would be important. As someone who will be visiting, it would be good to get some expanded information in English of the geographical locations of the events and of the transport network. Hack (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Padula:, you way wish to ask this question at WP:BRAZIL which is a little more active than this page. Hack (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hack: I'm thinking to propose a project Wiki Loves The Olympics, or something like that to collect good pictures during the games, what do you think about it? Rodrigo Padula (talk)

What's Wikipedia's current level of coverage of the Olympics? Very good is the answer, but I was wondering about specifics. Is there an article for every non-demonstration event that ever happened? Like "women's 100 meters breaststroke at Paris 1924"? Does every Country in the XXXX Olympics article exist? Or every winner or medalist? Every venue? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Sagittarian Milky Way: Here's your link: Swimming at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre breaststroke. There was no 100-meter breaststroke event in 1924, as the breaststroke was a 200-meter endurance event for most of its early existence on the Olympic swimming program. That said, yes, there are stand-alone articles for most if not all individual Olympic events, and many if not most of them could use some work. Many exist only as a results table with a brief introduction. Per WP:NOLYMPICS, all Olympic athletes are presumed to be notable, and we have pretty close to 100% coverage for all Olympic medalists. I do a lot of work with the bio articles for the Olympic swimmers of Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States -- which are in better shape than say the Olympic swimmers of France or Spain -- but most still need work. There are whole categories of non-medalist Olympic athlete articles that exist only as one or two-sentence stubs. Let me know what your interests are, and perhaps I can help you find a block of articles to chew on. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Well I found that Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics had numerous links bearing a different spelling of meters anD space character system than where they were supposed to point to so I fixed that. I couldn't easily find another article like that, though. Someone who can program could write a bot so there wouldn't be red links that are just from meters vs. metres or people not knowing obscure space characters or that they should use "—" instead of "-". I couldn't easily find something else I could do with the IOC website (which only seems to list the top 3 and their times). Maybe when it's closer to the Olympics and I'm more interested I'll borrow something from the library with the top 8 contestants instead of just the medalists and bluen some of those red event links I saw. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Metres vs. meters: I believe all of the Olympic articles use the British/Commonwealth English (and international) spelling of "metres" for all Olympic event distances, but there should be a redirect for the American spelling "meters" for each event article. The use of different dashes should not impact searches, etither; there should be a redirect using each of the dash/hyphen characters. The best way to search our Olympic event articles is to use the event navboxes in the articles themselves; for example, you can jump from all of the swimming events at the 1936 Games using Template:SwimmingAt1936SummerOlympics, or you can jump from year to year within a given event using, for example, Template:Footer Olympic Champions 100 m Freestyle Men, which also links to the bio article for the event winners. What would you like to work on? Any particular sports or events? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

someone must've made an error with this one. I like track and field but that might be the hardest sport to add new info to, lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Not every medal winner has an article (yet). Take a look at Lists of Olympic medalists and work through the individual sports. For example, the List of Olympic medalists in weightlifting has some redlinks. They may already exist under a different spelling. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

South Africa Sport Confederation and Olympics Committee (SASCOC) declared that the athletes who qualified from continental qualification events would not be considered to participate the 2016 Olympics. This is the refernce. So, I think all articles which South African athletes qualified in continental events should remove and replaced by each sports' reallocation. There are 4 qualifications, women rugby, men and women hockey, and one event of women diving. It also happened in 2012 Olympics which Both hockey teams didn't participate in the Olympics. Please give me an opinion. Thanks.Noncommittalp (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Talk:Marin Čilić → Marin Cilic
• Talk:Agnieszka Radwańska → Agnieszka Radwanska
• Talk:Ana Ivanovic → Ana Ivanović

:in case alerts haven't picked them up. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I ran across Turkey at the 2004 Summer Olympics and removed the external link to the Turkish committee [1] and the link in the infobox as well [2]. Such links only belong if they were references (which I doubt could happen) or in articles specifically about the committees, National Olympic Committee of Turkey for this specific link. It appears that such links have been included as a standard component in Olympics articles. Thought it best to bring up here. --Ronz (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I assume any large-scale changes are just too much work for the little improvement in the articles themselves. However, I think the templates should all have the external links removed. --Ronz (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the links from a few more templates. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jonas kam: @Andrwsc: @Ianblair23:: Do we need to discuss this before I just remove all the links from the templates? --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I support the removal. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Why would we remove them? Granted they are a self-source, so not the ideal reference material, but frequently the most knowledgeable location for information about these subjects. There are also an ideal jumping off point to find sometimes obscure sports committees. As an external link, as an info box link, identified as the committee's voice, they are exactly what we should link. Every corporation has their home business website. That is much more of an advertising vehicle, but appropriate for those articles. I urge you to return the ones you have deleted. Trackinfo (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose only if there is not a relevant NOC article for a country... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

They should be removed per WP:EL from all articles except those specifically about the committees. As I said in the examples, the link to the Turkish committee belongs in National Olympic Committee of Turkey only, not in any of the other articles about the Turkish Olympic teams or other Olympics-related articles. --Ronz (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is what I agree with. However there are certain countries without a wiki page, and I propose keeping the links for those countries. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

An example would help. To be clear though, you're talking about an article itself, no a template, correct? --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

So for information about which organization directly was responsible for placing that team in that competition, you want readers to search back through the organization's wikilink? We try to improve people's navigation to information. So before you remove content, find a better alternative to put in its place. If there is a topical page for the specific year's selection, if there is a path to the individual sports, by all means, there are better alternatives available. Your serving selection may vary. But we are not about removing content just for the sake of making a few more edits and some extra blank space. Trackinfo (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, those links are inappropriate. We provide internal links instead. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not add external links to related organizations WP:ELNO#19 states, "Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered."<ref name=NotRef /><ref>Links to websites ''are'' permitted when the website has been used as a [[WP:Reliable source]], but ''not'' to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.<br />'''No''': "[http://RedCross.org The Red Cross] issued a press release that said..." <br />'''Yes''': "The [[Red Cross]] issued a press release that said...[http://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.edd4398600b584f5fef71210c23f78a0/?vgnextoid=00a00628b1cde110VgnVCM10000089f0870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default]" </ref> --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with having external links to a NOC removed from articles not about the NOC, at least if an article on the NOC (with the external link) exists. An exception would be if the external link contains information about e.g. Turkey at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Gap9551 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As a general principle, I agree with Gap and Ronz. However, I will note that several of the better-designed NOC websites include pages for team history at individual games as well as individual athlete bios, and I do believe that it would be appropriate to link the NOC subpages for history and athlete bio searches -- if either exists for the particular NOC website. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Per this MOS headings are to be kept to a minimum, and a user keeps reverting my edits when I remove the unnecessary headings on the different nation pages. So who is in the right here? Also can the policy be changed without discussion? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have already reverted it just a few days ago, and then I've checked them again on your edits in which you think that it is suitable for the NOC against the rest. Anyway, I'll discuss on the different pinpoints to the page, so that the edit war incident may not happen again in the future, especially as the upcoming Olympic Games is fast approaching. I humbly respect your nationality, and you are most deserving to contribute to the project. But you must observe them first, not trying to judge your edits okay.

• I just noticed that you replaced the TOC cluttering with the headings instead, especially on the team-based sports. You must have carefully read the guidelines on the table headings in the WP:OLYMOSNAT page, and I think you may have not understand clearly, so you decided to edit them instantly without anyone's further knowledge and instruction or without skimming the NOC pages from the previous Games for a quick review.
• All team-based sports have two sections (the men's and women's tournament), so they should be cluttered. Within each tournament contains the following headings: team roster, group play, and knockout stage (but we renamed each of them separately to quarterfinal, semifinal, gold or bronze medal match, or classification in any rank). Apart from the team-based sports, different disciplines in canoeing, cycling, equestrian, and gymnastics should be cluttered for numerous reasons, especially in track cycling (where the competition has been divided into four sub-disciplines placed in each table, sprint, keirin, omnium, team pursuit, and team sprint – due to space constraints). Same case with equestrian and gymnastics as they have been divided into three, canoeing into two, because these sports have different rules to the competition format. Please do remember that equestrian is an open sport, so both men and women compete transparently in each sub-discipline (dressage, eventing, and jumping). Without the cluttering, the table of contents for each NOC would become so useless and no longer be user-friendly. Moreover, all NOCs follow the standard format of tables, headings, and styling for each sport, and the consensus has agreed onto it.
• In the main sections, I just noticed that you include the qualification pages to every sport section, knowing that they can be found on the main section link. Is it necessary to do so in all NOC pages apart from your home turf? With honesty, I already removed it in the other NOCs at the previous editions of the Games back then for consistency to the standard format.

I hope you read and understand my explanation. Anyway, the decision about the heading problem lies on the consensus, and let's see what the consensus can do to address it and institute some changes to the guidelines. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Guys, it would be really helpful if you could each provide several examples of the disputed subsection headers for others to review. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@User:Raymarcbadz First of all I ask you to refrain from changing the MOS page arbitrarily. Its not up to you to decide if it changes, more so the community.

• Secondly, I believe my changes should be across all articles, but my interest lie within the country of my birth (Canada). Plus Wikipedia is a work in progress, and a change does not mean it needs to be across all articles immediately.
• Previous games do not hold merit, if the MOS says headings should be kept to a minimum then they should.
• Per the MOS qualification pages may be linked to the article, so I see no problem with that. Why do you insist on removing them?

@Dirtawyer1, the headings I suggest removing are the ones such as Dressage under equestrian and having a separate heading for each tournament of each team sport. After all we only have one article per sport and the same should be done with headings (and this reduces cluttering, per the MOS). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234, I already asked you a question before. Is it necessary to do so in all NOC pages apart from your home turf? Why do I insist? Qualification pages are linked to the sport pages. I know it's a relevant part of the program, but why it is necessary to be placed in a sport section of an NOC article? Would you also apply the link to every sport of other NOC articles? Remember there must be a fair standard format for every NOC page even if you said that Wikipedia is a work of progress. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dirtlawyer1, here are the examples of the disputed edits made by @Sportsfan 1234 and me. [3] and [4]. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be consistent across all articles. So what if the qualification pages are linked to the sport pages? In the nation pages qualification is mentioned under each sport. Therefore the link to the qualification article should be there. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm of the opinion that the headings such as "Dressage" or the separate headings for Men's and Women's sections in team sports make navigating the page much easier and should stay. If the TOC is becoming unwieldly in any individual case then I'd recommend leaving the headings as they are (to at least make editing section by section an easier task) and using this H:LIMITTOC to limit the level of headings incorporated into the TOC. As for the links to qualification pages I also don't see any reason that they should be removed from scetions in the by country articles; details on how the athletes qualified are relevant (ideally we'd also explain the process of qualification in the text but given the volume of athletes that is probably a pipe dream) - Basement12 (T.C) 15:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• If the TOC becomes unwieldy, there are ways to code it so that only the first or second level headers appear in the TOC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your brilliant ideas, Basement 12 and Dirtlawyer. I'm sure the TOC limit may be a helpful way to make the NOC article more user-friendly for editing. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Having participated in the drafting of the MOS guidelines, I cannot remember why we thought that adding a third-level heading would promote "TOC cluttering". I think we should be safe to add headings up to the 4th level (====) without making a mess out of the TOC. I'm also fine with leaving the qualification article link. The project should probably review this MOS to assess how consensual the guidelines still are, which might require improving/updating. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil#Olympic games improvement drive. Thanks. fgnievinski (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Howdy. May we have some input at this discussion? thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Street Press (ASP) is an electronic academic database publisher. Its "Academic Video Online: Premium collection" includes videos in a range of subject areas, including news programs (like 60 minutes) and newsreels, music and theatre, speeches and lectures and demonstrations, and documentaries. This collection would be useful for researching topics related to science, engineering, history, music and dance, anthropology, business, counseling and therapy, news, nursing, drama, and more. For more topics see their website.

There are up to 30 one-year ASP accounts available to experienced Wikipedians through this partnership. To apply for free access, please go to WP:ASP. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Many individual projects have adapted to use the Module:Sports table and the use is spread accross wikipedia now (and also already in some Olympic tables). Shouild we not update guidelines like Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) to the use of this module? Qed237 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I believe that, where applicable, that should be the case. In fact, I think those guidelines should be reviewed entirely and, if necessary, updated. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am currently looking at all the tables in Olympic games to get consistency, which is one reason for the module. It is better if tables have the same look. Some new submodules might be needed, for example for volleyball, and I am working on it. About the rest of the guideline, I agree with @Parutakupiu:, a review is needed. Qed237 (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Should we list "knockout stage" (diff) as used in other tournaments I have seen like 2015–16 UEFA Champions League and other tournaments since after group stage comes knockout stage? Or should we list the round in knockout stage they have qualified for i.e. "Round of 16", "Quarter-finals", "Semi-finals" and so on (diff)? I think it would be good with consistency over all sports (if possible). Also I am trying to update all tables to Module:Sports table used in many sports. Qed237 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Kante4 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: To be clear, what do you agree with? That we should be consistent? That we should use "knockout stage"? That we should use the round? Qed237 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Either knockout stage or the round. Would prefer the round, tbh. Kante4 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: I am happy as long as we are consistent. The reason I picked "knockout stage" is that some sports have separate knockout stage articles and it felt wrong to have a wikilinks to a knockout stage article and then displaying "quarter-finals" like we did at Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament – Group B (and similar) before I corrected it (diff). Qed237 (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Top-importance Olympics articles includes some odd choices. Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic Bids is partly to blame. How can the article about Bids for Foo Games be more important than the article about Foo Games? jnestorius^(talk) 11:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Template talk:FlagIOCmedalist about the strangeness of FlagIOCmedalist. We have had FlagIOCathlete being used in tennis Olympic articles for quite some, and I don't really see a problem with it. But in the last few days pretty much ALL of those articles have been changed to FlagIOCmedalist as in this example. I was told that FlagIOCmedalist must be used. Now, I wasn't going to complain that the full country name was being used instead of the code, even though the code has mouseover to the country name, and the full country name is much longer. But what I am complaining about is the use of the country code plus the country name. That is ridiculous and completely unnecessary! We try to streamline these things and this adds even more coding. This template needs to be changed so that it omits the country code or at the very least only gives the country code as an optional item. We don't need both for heaven's sake. I was going to start an RfC but figured that bringing it to your attention here might get it done faster and avoid that hassle. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree. Qed237 (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree aswell. Kante4 (talk) 16:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! There is a current discussion about the removal of the 3-digit country code here. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 00:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I posted my proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volleyball/Archive 2#Tables, but I think this is a better place to get a good discussion. What I do miss on Olympic team sport pages, is linking to the Nation Olympic pages (like Brazil at the 2016 Summer Olympics). For individuals at the Olympics (like  Ellen van Dijk (NED)) you can click to the person AND to the nation page. For team sports it is different of course because both the team sport and the olympic page is about the nation. But what about someting like:

Men's volleyball team (BRA) - (instead of  Brazil)

Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think "Mens volleyball team" in a table of only volleyball teams would be a bit weird. But I could go with:
 Brazil (BRA)
or something similar (just adding the (BRA) after the team). I noticed that athletes use {{FlagIOCathlete}} so I looked at {{FlagIOCteam}} but it does not link to the team that acvctually participate (the indivudual link to their article so we should have a link to the team article). Perhaps we can make some sort of new template to get whatever we decide. Qed237 (talk) 12:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I created the template Template:FlagIOCvb and Template:FlagIOCvbw.

So for men's using {{FlagIOCvb|BRA|2016 Summer}} gives: {{FlagIOCvb|BRA|2016 Summer}}.

So women's using {{FlagIOCvbw|BRA|2016 Summer}} gives: {{FlagIOCvbw|BRA|2016 Summer}}.

What do you think? (Templates for the other team sports can be created the same way). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 12:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Not sure we should have new templates for all sports. You may be interested in Template talk:FlagIOCmedalist#Repetition, again. Qed237 (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I wantes to expand Template:FlagIOCteam with an extra parameter, but I don't have the rights to do so, so this was a quicker solution. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 16:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally i'm not a fan of the display. Kante4 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel: I think Qed237 or I'd be happy to take a reasonable edit request to {{FlagIOCteam}} (I can probably get it done within a day). Ping me on that talk page, or my own. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 19:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Sander.v.Ginkel, Kante4, and Sander.v.Ginkel: well I think I got Sander.v.Ginkel's idea. Check this out:

• {{FlagIOCteam/sandbox|BRA|2016 Summer|men|volleyball}} produces:

 Brazil (BRA)

• {{FlagIOCteam/sandbox|BRA|2016 Summer|women|volleyball}} produces:

 Brazil (BRA)

• {{FlagIOCteam/sandbox|GER|2012 Summer|women|field hockey}} produces:

 Germany (GER)

This is currently in the sandbox only. If Sander.v.Ginkel is okay with this, maybe submit an edit request, mention me, and I think can process it in about 2 days. — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 20:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally I am a bit torn about this, although I understand some may want link to the NOC as that is done for athletes. Qed237 (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is no consensus for this, so it doesn't make sense to act now anyway. Just that there's no need to create {{FlagIOCvb}} or vbw for each sport. (those templates may satisfy T3) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 20:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: How about football that uses Template:Fbo instead of regular Template:Fb because of special olympics team. For example Germany Olympic football team. Qed237 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Looks like they aren't compatible with the template and can stick with a different one (biggest reason being men's football is so much bigger, so the naming discrepancy makes sense) — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 20:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: If we cant have something that fits all, perhaps it is better to leave this as is, without linking to the NOCs. Otherwise having a named parameter where "Olympic football team" and similar special links can be set. Qed237 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the NOC need to be linked at all on team sport articles. It was fine as it was. It looks clumsy having that much text. Kante4 (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Underneath these headings there should be a results table listing all athletes from the nation competing in that sport. In the case of a nation having more than six competitors in a given sport, this table may be further split into "Men" and "Women" results tables. Should this be changed to allow for two different tables (one per gender) irrespective of the amount of athletes qualified (including less than 6)? I say No. What does everyone else think? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How about for boxing, rowing, shooting, swimming, and wrestling? Why can't you just shorten the titles if you disagree, and sometimes we separate the tables to fill enough spaces for the results, especially in combative sports and with longer surnames of their opponents. How about for athletics? You can't just simply merge men and women into one table, because track, field, and combined events have different modules from each other. And have you seen a lot of NOCs from previous editions? It's not personal, but assumingly, you're not reading and studying them at all. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Any sport with less than 6 athletes should have one table per the MOS, which you happened to teach me about during the Sochi Games! [5]. "Because track, field, and combined events have different modules from each other", those three are always kept separate due to the different column titles!. Please do not revert until further comment is made by other users! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

But that's exclusive only for Winter Olympics, Sportsfan 1234. For the Summer Olympics, we have different ways to style and arrange the results tables to the athletes in each sport and we do have a standard format that the consensus has followed in all NOC pages. See the link for reference, and try to study it. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

How is it exclusive to the Winter Olympics? The lead says, "The Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) sets out the style guidelines recommended by the WikiProject Olympics to achieve a consistent format for articles describing the results obtained by the competitors of a specific National Olympic Committee (henceforth referred simply as "nation") at an edition of the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games. These articles can be found under the categories: Nations at the Summer Olympics, Nations at the Winter Olympics, Nations at the Summer Paralympics, and Nations at the Winter Paralympics." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"Underneath these headings there should be a results table listing all athletes from the nation competing in that sport. In the case of a nation having more than six competitors in a given sport, this table may be further split into "Men" and "Women" results tables." This is exactly what I am doing. Secondly, "The results section for each sport where the competitors of a nation take part should have an level two heading (== Sport ==). The section should begin with a link to the main article of that sport for the Games in question, by means of the Error: no page names specified (help). template. If available, the article on the Olympic qualification for the sport can also be added." Removing them from articles for no reason does not constitute good editing!! Please read Wikipedia:Ownership of content because you certainly have this problem. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

So would you like to impose a burden and toil on me and other users to revise all of the NOC pages that we edited for the past three Summer Olympic editions? That's what you always proved yourself to be rightful over us, assuming that all of my edits are indeed WRONG because you think that I do not follow the guidelines. I already helped you, but you attempted to sabotage mine and other users' edits, and control everything that you have, especially on WP:OLYMOSNAT. Seriously, you are an OLYMPICS FAN turning yourself into a MANAGER and ADMINISTRATOR of the WIKIPROJECT OLYMPICS. That's the TRUTH. Let's see if you can revise all of the NOC pages from Athens 2004 to London 2012 NOW, with your pointless, but compelling suggestions that none of us would deserve. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, let's just wait for the other users to share their own insights about your concern. Should we not update guidelines like Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations)? Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, you can't even merge men and women in artistic gymnastics, because they have a different number of apparatus from each other. You can't allow women to compete in rings and parallel bars, use common sense. So please don't exercise your ridiculous tactics to put them on a single table for artistic gymnastics, because you have nothing to deal with. That's why I'm telling you that we have different ways to style and arrange the results tables to the athletes in each Summer Olympic sport and we do have a standard and consistent format that the consensus has already followed in all NOC pages. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No comment = status quo then? Fair to say that? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sander.v.Ginkel, Parutakupiu, Kante4 and Basement12, do you have any suggestions and concerns? Sportsfan 1234, I'll tag them because they initiated the project about manual of style for NOC pages. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If the tables allow it, I'm fine with merging men and women (But I actualy don't really bother). In addition, I would propose an extra table, for the bigger countries probably on a seperate page, listing all the competitors of that country. Example from the Dutch Wikipedia: nl:Lijst van Nederlandse deelnemers aan de Olympische Zomerspelen van 2012. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 06:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

But how about the gymnastics, Sander.v.Ginkel? Aren't men and women should remain separated because they do have different apparatus apart from each other? I don't think the list would be a necessary tool to have its own article. Anything else, I'm fine with merging men and women for other sports (except athletics, boxing, fencing – unless we remove the word individual, gymnastics, rowing, sailing, shooting, wrestling). They may vary depending on the allocation of space for images or gallery and results, and longer description of events. Raymarcbadz (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is what I mean with "if the tables allow it". So for gymnastics it is better indeed to have seperate tables. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 08:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it all comes down to common sense and not blindly following the guidelines (guidelines, not unquestionable rules). If men and women do not share the exact same set of events (e.g. gymnastics), it's reasonable to have different tables per gender, regardless of the number of athletes. Also, the six-athlete threshold is a mere indication that can be perfectly adjusted if a consensus is reached. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, common sense dictates merging if the headings are the same... and in the case of gymnastics they are not (and other sports possibly that I can't think off atm). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Athletics and wrestling for sure, you can't merge both genders. Do you want them to merge into the one table on sports with less than six athletes regardless of the width size of each event? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

You know what? Let's just set up what has been done in the past, and then follow the format for future editions. It's so difficult for us to revamp the NOC pages which will take several months, even for years seriously, simply because you put on something on styling and formatting of table that may differ from previous Olympic editions, and then spot which of them seems better before revamping happens. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Tried to make this comment earlier but kept getting a Wikipedia in read-only mode error... Completely agree with Parutakupiu. There is a need to apply a bit of common sense and reasoning on a case-by-case basis. For some sports (e.g gymnastics) there is an obvious advantage to separate tables whatever the number of competitors. I don't recall why six was the limit chosen, I suspect it was somewhat arbitrary and I would caution against any entirely definitive limit - there is a big difference between six athletes each competing in a single event (badminton perhaps) and six athletes in multiple events (e.g. swimming). - Basement12 (T.C) 16:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Basement12: Just to inform, it was no error it was a major infrastructure migration on Tuesday, 19 April and Thursday, 21 April, starting at 14:00 UTC. This process is expected to take 15 to 30 minutes each time. Qed237 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Men and Women should be split, just because they don't compete in the same events (other than Mixed events). So, no matter if there are 3, 6 or 32382312 competitors, split it. Sportsfan 1234 has an odd way to discuss... Kante4 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Kante4, I don't believe that's a sensible distinction, épée, foil and sabre fencers don't tend to compete in the same events (anymore!) either, so would you suggest they be split into separate tables? - Basement12 (T.C) 16:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Split Men and Women, not athletes who compete in more disciplines. That's totally different as they stay at men/women. Kante4 (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The question I was hinting at, is why you believe it is anymore necessary to split men and women than to split different disciplines? You're right that it's different but it's just as valid a way of splitting - Basement12 (T.C) 21:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I am open to anything. Even a revamp of the MOS guidelines with the current crop of editors pitching in ideas. However I do not think its necessary to have men/women split up when there is less than 6 of them (and when the sport has the same headings, such as fencing and rowing for ex.). @Kante4:, if following the rules of the MOS is considered 'odd' than so be it. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

But this does not mean that you have an intention to do so for the rest of NOCs without seeking everyone's approval and reviewing them from previous Summer Olympic editions. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

For the record I have now warned both Raymarcbadz and Sportsfan 1234 over edit warring on this issue. If they persist I feel there will be little choice but to give them some time to cool down. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think where we stand is that the majority opinion is tables can be merged wherever possible, it doesn't matter if some nations are merged an others not (depending on athlete numbers) - Basement12 (T.C) 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Basement12, if Sportsfan 1234 and I have provoked an edit war. We have so many disagreeements over the WP:OLYMOSNAT, and I'm already tired of these. It's much better if we should propose tables for both rowing and shooting to lessen the edit war and to be used for future editions. I just don't understand why these contents did not correspond to the style used in London 2012. The previous Games did not merge tables in shooting, while the current edition alienates. Same applies to rowing. I also didn't even understand why Sportsfan 1234 used Canada at the 2016 Summer Olympics as an example to the rest of NOCs. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Different countries or GAmes as an example isnt really teh point here, as has been discussed there is no hard and fast rule for mergeing or not - it needs to be decided on a case by case basis and doesn't need to be the same from Games to Games necessarily. Generally I think consensus has always been to allow merging where possible, mainly to reduce the length of some pages. Wasting everyone's time and effort constantly undoing each others edits over a mostly entirely inconsequential issue achieves nothing - Basement12 (T.C) 13:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI, this has reached its inevitable conclusion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Raymarcbadz reported by User:Sportsfan 1234 (Result: ) - Basement12 (T.C) 14:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234 and Basement12, I think it's much better if we can add the gender column to all of the tables instead. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone got any further and recent info on the latest with her death? Everything was updated in November, but I can't find any more info on if someone has been charged/convicted with her death. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I added a ref from 6 April; it says on that day th court case should have been opened.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ymblanter. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Fyi, I've nominated Template:2016 Summer Olympics Participating National Olympic Committees – Flag-bearers for discussion/deletion. It was created through Wikipedia:Drafts but as far as I can see isn't used anywhere and isn't necessary. Please weigh in with any thoughts here. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 08:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

I would like to ask you a question without any argument about the styling of the group match templates. Which among these options are more appropriate for them? Dotting the lines or background color? Is adding a background color against MOS? I don't think there's a clear explanation and proof about the problem. Any comments please, Basement12, Kante4, Qed237. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lines are more common and "better". But only after each day, same Day = no lines. Kante4 (talk) 05:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Per the MOS tables are supposed to be used, and no where in that is colour mentioned. Secondly, previous games (which you like to tout) have the dotted lines, and so do the main sport articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why lines are more appropriate than background color? Have you seen this one? Need a reason for it. Assume that this is for the group matches displayed on the NOC, not the individual tables that we usually set up. How about you, Basement12 and Qed237? Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

At the NOC Pages i Support the colour. Kante4 (talk) 10:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Raymarcbadz: Do you have examples of the different alternatives so I have something to compare? Qed237 (talk) 10:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind I just saw the editing on Germany at the 2016 Summer Olympics. In my mind it does not matter on these pages as long as we are consistent. However, for readers with some difficulties (i.e. colorblind) a line would be preferred. Qed237 (talk) 10:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, that is another reason. We should have uniform consistency and if the sports pages have lines the NOC pages should as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, "No background colour in the athlete's row is necessary or recommended." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think QED237's point about colourblind users is probably the best reason I've seen in favour of either of these options. Is either enitirely necessary? - Basement12 (T.C) 14:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I have read just now. Yes, Qed237, I have something to compare. I'll send the link to you through your talk page. Actually, I only used a gray bg on the NOC pages, not other colors. I am pondering if we can use dotted lines on the group matches. We are aiming for consistency to the NOC pages corresponding to the previous editions. Do we need to revamp the NOC pages again from the previous editions because Sportsfan 1234 kept on changing too many contents on every NOC page of the current edition? Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kante4 and Basement12, Hmm. It's necessary. I only used gray color as the background pattern for the group matches. Not sure if this may further help colorblind readers, but hopefully it does. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The backround thing was what i was trying to say. Editing on phone takes ages and so i thought that was enough, to let everyone knows what i was meaning. I was adding games with that. Kante4 (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Kante4 and Basement12, Sportsfan 1234 kept on reverting my edits. I do not understand why did this user continue to use Canada at the 2016 Summer Olympics as an example for some of the NOCs, and refuse me to undo it. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I think its pretty clear that the main reason here is due to people being colourblind that we will stick with the (<wiki>----</nowiki>) Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In this example Sportsfan was correct to do so it seems. No idea why you insist on removing the links to qualification summaries and it seems if there is a consensus on colour it's to not have it in these cases. Additionally you still refuse to use a WP:EDITSUMMARY which certainly doesn't help matters if you aren't explaining what you're doing. The infighting between the two of you is getting beyond ridiculous - Basement12 (T.C) 15:05, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12, can you explain why Sportsfan 1234's approach on Canada has applied to the rest of the NOCs? Am I doing wrongly? These pages didn't follow what has already been done in the previous editions. Are you and Sportsfan 1234 willing to insist me to follow that approach for all? Seriously, I'm not convinced about these changes. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The NOC's are for the Olympic games so I dont see why we need qualification there? Qed237 (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And the qualification is for the Olympic Games! Each sport lead also mentions "qualified" so the links to the qualification article is very relevant. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, fine. I just don't even understand why there are no qualification links in the previous editions, particularly in Beijing 2008 and London 2012? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

What is so different from other sports events? The main purpose of these articles is to explain the progress of the nation in the Olympic games. Qed237 (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Which starts with qualification for the said games! @Raymarcbadz when Rio is over we can change the past games to reflect qualification articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Qed237: See my note of your talk page but in general these articles are supposed to be more than a listing of results. They should have additional prose and colour added around the story of the athlete's performance. At a time when the Games haven't started and qualification is ongoing those links are particularly useful to the reader. @Raymarcbadz: Canada has got less than zero to do with this. Changes to the style of the articles have been discussed above and in general the idea of removing colours is a good one. You continue to make changes without explaining your reasoning, conduct edit wars, and it isn't helpful so yes you are doing something very wrong. If you are concerned about particular changes discuss them on this talk page and if you do please give people some examples to look at. Basement12 (T.C) 15:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12, because you said changes to the styles of the articles having been discussed above is a good one, is there something wrong with the contents used in London 2012, particularly with some sports? Do all NOC pages from previous editions need again for more corrections once Rio 2016 is over? Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, the problem is that Athens 2004 does not have much qualification articles, and you need enough research and more sources to verify on them. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Which can be a fun research project (looking at it positively). However the MOS does say if they exist we can include them.... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Basement12: Yes articles should definately be more than list of results, which is something I usually work for. More prose is needed on a lot of sports articles. I just can not see thew importance of the qualification here. In other sports events we dont link to individual qualification events, we only do that in short from main articles and in my opinion it is not needed from NOC's. @Kante4: what do you think? Qed237 (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12, What and why does Canada have less than zero to do with this? Is it appropriate to remove the colors of the group matches? If you agree, then why do we need the {{bgc}} tag for each of the group match templates? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Because Canada is merely one example of literally thousands of articles in Category:Nations at the Olympics and Category:Nations at the Paralympics. What is appropriate is to reach a WP:CONSENSUS and do whatever that consensus is. I have given my views on this already as have others - Basement12 (T.C) 15:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And so as the United States. How do you prove that Canada is merely a single example and not the United States? It doesn't make sense to me. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, You said, "In other sports events we dont link to individual qualification events, we only do that in short from main articles and in my opinion it is not needed from NOC's". Can you explain this clearly? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Qed237 What other sporting events are you referring too? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Raymarcbadz, Sportsfan 1234, and Basement12: for example there is also Wikipedia:WikiProject Multi-sport events and looking ats others like Asian Games I dont see those nation articles contain links to qualification. Qed237 (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Just because it isn't done elsewhere doesn't mean it should be done here. I doubt qualification articles for the Asian Games exist, or will ever exist in most cases, so there really isn't a comparison. Qualification is as relevant a link to have as the top level sport one on the nation pages, especially while these things are fluid in the run up to the Games; imagine for example a reader who sees their country has qualified one athlete in a sport but wants to know whether there are chances to others to make it to Rio. That link is very useful to them - Basement12 (T.C) 16:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Basement12: But is it a "main"-article? The main article is the article for the sport in the olympics and the qualification is just a sub for that main article. Qed237 (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Well if your dispute is the use of the word "main" then to follow WP:SUMMARY STYLE to the letter of the law then neither should be linked. However, If our aim is to produce something that is is useful to the reader, and I believe in the example I've given above that these links are, then we should include them. Once participants/teams are finalised then there is a much stronger case for not having the qualifiction links and I don't think I'd hve a problem with removing them then - Basement12 (T.C) 21:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I have various concerns for rowing and shooting, so I decided to show you some examples.

Version 1

Men

Athlete	Event	Heats		Repechage		Semifinals		Final
		Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank
Felipe Cardenas Bernardo Guerrero	Lightweight double sculls

Women

Athlete	Event	Heats		Repechage		Semifinals		Final
		Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank
Melita Abraham Josefa Veliz	Lightweight double sculls

Version 2

Athlete	Event	Heats		Repechage		Semifinals		Final
		Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank	Time	Rank
Felipe Cardenas Bernardo Guerrero	Men's lightweight double sculls
Melita Abraham Josefa Veliz	Women's lightweight double sculls

Qualification Legend: FA=Final A (medal); FB=Final B (non-medal); FC=Final C (non-medal); FD=Final D (non-medal); FE=Final E (non-medal); FF=Final F (non-medal); SA/B=Semifinals A/B; SC/D=Semifinals C/D; SE/F=Semifinals E/F; QF=Quarterfinals; R=Repechage

Version 1

Men

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Torben Grimmel	50 m rifle prone			—
Jesper Hansen	Skeet

Women

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Stine Nielsen	10 m air rifle
	50 m rifle 3 positions

Version 2

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Torben Grimmel	Men's 50 m rifle prone			—
Jesper Hansen	Men's skeet
Stine Nielsen	Women's 10 m air rifle			—
	Women's 50 m rifle 3 positions			—

Version 3

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Torben Grimmel	Men's rifle prone			—
Jesper Hansen	Men's skeet
Stine Nielsen	Women's air rifle			—
	Women's rifle 3 positions			—

Version 4

Rifle & pistol

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Torben Grimmel	Men's rifle prone
Stine Nielsen	Women's air rifle
	Women's rifle 3 positions

Shotgun

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final / BM
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Opposition Result	Rank
Jesper Hansen	Men's skeet

Qualification Legend: Q = Qualify for the next round; q = Qualify for the bronze medal (shotgun)

My concern for version two is that some of the words in a particular event are quite lengthy, unless we might change these words into a shorter version, and I might get worried of running out of space. Is there a possibility to shorten these words for enough spacing? Or is it okay for you regardless of the column width? I split these tables from the previous editions before to pave its way for enough spacing. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12 and Kante4, what do you think? Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

6 or less athletes = 1 table. All of the sports listed above, I do not believe this will be an issue. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Version 1. Kante4 (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Version 1 for me as well, lets be consistent and always split men and women as they often have different articles anyway. Also 6 athletes seems like a very arbitrary number. Qed237 (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

6 is per the MOS. There is absolutely no need to keep them on separate tables with a low number of competitors. This makes the article unnecessarily longer. So what if they compete differently? I mean the different events are contested differently as well, should we split them as well then? Per the MOS we should keep them together if less than 6 athletes, and that is what will be followed. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: As you know that project MOS was made up as a guideline (not a rule that has to be followed all the time), based on discussions at that time. But consensus may change in these kind of discussions, which is why we have them. Please try and behave more nicely against other editors as you always come out very aggressive in a "I am always right" kind of way. We are all here to improve wikipedia, dont forget that. Qed237 (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the obsession with splitting tables. I'm not sure what "they often have different articles anyway" is supposed to mean, as far as I see it the 100 metre and 400 metre sprint events have different articles but we don't split those into a different tables. Version 2 in both cases is the neatest way to record the results and keeps the article length down. Frankly in cases where a nation only has one male and one female athlete I think it looks ridiculous to split them. Personally I see no benefit whatsover to always splitting execept to ensure there is no more squabbling and to remove the need to make intelligent decisions on a case my case basis. Too much time has been wasted on this trivial issue already - Basement12 (T.C) 21:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, agree with Qed237 and Kante4. Please try to behave nicely against other editors including me when editing the NOC pages. With all of our honesty, you're becoming so aggressively strict and insistent in urging us to follow the MOS guidelines. Every time, we corrected some errors and other updates, you simply impose to revert them back and provide the baseless reason for it, which may lose such data in the content. Additionally, you put some personal judgments (ownership, childish behavior, any acts against human dignity) towards me on the edit summary of every NOC, which is considered bullying. We are here to discuss fairly and transparently about our concerns and to contribute to the project without squabbling one another. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12 Exactly, this trivial issue is indeed a waste of time and effort. I've been working hard to put most of the contents in every NOC, especially when I'm currently updating on the selection, qualification, and finality of the Olympic roster, and then suddenly, someone urges me to strictly follow the unnecessary guidelines of the MOS, which can destroy too much time for improvement and consistency. Seriously, we would have analyzed and reviewed the NOC pages, and see what has needed to be improved before creating all of them less than two years ago. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237:, @Basement12:, and @Kante4:, do we need to split the tables if a sport contains six athletes? It's not even clearly enough. (no butting in of discussion please for others, respect). Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm all for splitting. Even if there are less than 6. Men and Women compete in different events. Kante4 (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Kante4. Split them. Qed237 (talk) 09:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you guys splitting tables for athletics, boxing, fencing (unless we remove the word individual to merge as one table), gymnastics (due to exceptional cases on each event and its competition format), rowing, sailing (unique names of the boats), shooting, swimming, and wrestling. 6 or more athletes will definitely be split. The rest of the sports can contain less than six athletes on a single table. For the group matches, I do suggest that we have to remove the {{bgc}} template as our primary concern for colorblind readers, replacing them with dashed lines on the NOCs instead (as highly suggested by Basement12). Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I oppose splitting for men and women if there are 6 or less athletes. This creates unnecessary length to articles (in particular nations with a lot of sports). Keeping it simple is the most important. However when the headings are different (for ex. in gymnastics) we need to keep them separated. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC) @Basement12:

@Sportsfan 1234:, when you say unnecessary length to articles? Are you referring to the byte size or the length of the tables? Your statement isn't clear though. And yes, keeping it simple is more important, but in what way? Basement12, can you specify which sports do you need to keep them separated because of the differences in headings? If you and Sportsfan 1234 strongly oppose on splitting, let's just make everything fair. For shooting events, let's just remove the distances instead if you want these contents to put them on a single table (see Version 3) to save much needed space for images and results (remember some NOC pages may contain images). For fencing, we can just remove the word individual across all individual events (e.g. men's individual foil = men's foil). To be honest, the MOS guidelines for all NOC pages regarding the results tables are getting convoluted and prejudiced due to differences across all sports, and we would have analyzed and reviewed all of them from London 2012 before the qualifying period started. Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It can refer to both, but I was referring more to the length.

Here is a list of sports where I think one table is good for countries with less than 6 athletes:

• Diving (each event has the same phases).
• Swimming (I think 6 or less events, should result in one table. All tripartite nations will have just 2 athletes/2 events. In the odd event that there are more than 6 events, but less than 6 athletes, we should split it).
• Archery (same headings for all events, only needs to be split when a nation qualifies a full men's and women's team).
• Badminton (I think we should split by singles/doubles)
• Boxing (all have the same headings, and ones where the round doesn't happen we use the n/a template).
• Canoeing (slalom/sprint separated with 6 or less = 1 table).
• Cycling (Road/BMX/Mountain biking)
• Gymnastics (trampoline)
• Fencing
• Golf
• Judo
• Modern pentathlon
• Rowing
• Sailing
• Table tennis
• Taekwondo
• Tennis
• Triathlon
• Beach volleyball
• Weightlifting

Which need separate tables:

• Gymnastics (artistic) – due to different headings
• Equestrian – due to different headings.

A mix of the above:

• Athletics (separate tables for track/field events, even with 6 or less athletes. However if its 6 or less of the same discipline, merge them. For ex. one male and two female field athletes + 2 track athletes = 2 tables (one for track and one for field). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Cycling track (separated by discipline; not gender).
• Shooting (I think Option 3 above is probably best, splitting it be discipline, rifle, shotgun and pistol irrespective of gender)
• Wrestling (I think we need to separate freestyle from greco-roman).

No explanation needed.

• Synchronized swimming
• Water polo
• Rhythmic gymnastics
• Field hockey
• Football
• Basketball
• Handball
• Rugby sevens
• Volleyball

Thoughts? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Define length of the article. It's still not clear again. Here are my thoughts.

• Diving – two options:
  • the distances can be removed on the events displayed on the tables. (e.g. instead of men's 3 m springboard, we'll just use men's springboard for Olympics)
  • split the tables between individual and synchronized events
• Table tennis – same case with archery (only needs to be split when a nation qualifies a full men's and women's team), so there's no explanation and effect needed, unless you want to merge the tables on both archery and table tennis for neatness
• Fencing – remove the word individual for individual events (e.g. men's individual foil = men's foil)
• Shooting – splitting it per discipline might increase more byte size, but we shall consider it. (could be arbitrary because it may be the same case on tables per gender)
• Swimming – kindly provide an example to clarify your case
• Cycling – there's no explanation or problem needed, we still use the same headings from the previous editions. They're all labeled with men's and women's across four sporting disciplines depending on the number of the competitors.
• Canoeing – no problem on merging tables, it has already been done before
• Golf, trampoline gymnastics, judo, modern pentathlon, taekwondo, tennis, triathlon, beach volleyball, and weightlifting – same case with canoeing
• Badminton – not necessary to split them between singles and doubles irrespective of gender.
• Wrestling – no explanation needed; keep the tables separated (men's freestyle, men's Greco-Roman, and women's freestyle)
• Athletics – not sure if we can classify these tables by gender or sport category. (most likely it's an arbitrary and questionable case)
• Sailing – three options
  • do we need to replace different names instead? (for RS:X = sailboard, for Laser and Laser Radial = dinghy; for Finn = heavyweight dinghy; for 470 = double dinghy; for 49er and 49erFX = skiff; for Nacra 17 = multihull); the case is still arbitrary and questionable;
  • keep the tables separated with respect to the unique names
  • add a gender column for easier identification of the sailors and then merge them on one table if there are few. (not necessary)

Please take note that even if the sport contains a table with one athlete only, you don't need headings (men or women) anymore. Just apply the same method with 6 or less athletes for transparency.

I would suggest that you should create them on a sandbox and test it for efficiency. Also, provide a link for it (use an NOC page containing almost all of the sports) to show the example. Do not put them yet on the main articles without letting other users (Qed237, Kante4, and Basement12 please take note) give their thoughts on your case in a more centralized discussion.

Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Olympic Hall of Fame inductees, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I noticed all the pages of Canoeing and kayaking at the Olympics are labelled with just the word canoeing. However, to label kayaking as canoeing is incorrect. Both disciplines take part in the Olympics under one IF. My proposal is to move all articles to Canoeing and Kayaking at the xxxx Olympics (and any associated articles). Is there any thoughts behind this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the IOC has never made any distinction between the two in naming see for example The Olympic website (Rio website is the same but can't find a full list to link to); this is despite making the effort to separate sprint and slalom "canoe". The parent article is at Canoeing and kayaking at the Summer Olympics but based on IOC naming conventions (what they say goes no matter how daft it sometimes is) I'd be more inclined to remove kayaking from that title rather than add it everywhere else - Basement12 (T.C) 14:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise but from my experince it is known as "Canoeing" only, even if it also consists of kayaking. I agree with User:Basement12. Qed237 (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much. The federation is called the "International Canoe Federation" and even on their website if you look under disciplines you see Canoe Sprint, Paracanoe, Canoe Slalom, Canoe Wildwater, Canoe Marathon, Canoe Polo etc. There is nothing about kayaking despite having kayaking events. I support changing Canoeing and kayaking at the Summer Olympics back to just Canoeing.

I believe it is already at canoeing. I agree with the above points and I think status quo should now be remained. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

For the 45th time, if there are 6 or less athletes then one table is used (per the MOS). For Finland especially since both events are of the same discipline. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why do you add Finland at the 2016 Summer Olympics on your watchlist? Are you the master of WP:OLYMOSNAT? Are you trying to compete against other editors? Seriously, I'm tired of asking too many questions. It seems that you're getting too perfect with all these things. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

FOR GRAMMAR, CAN YOU PLEASE SPECIFY THE ERROR? Why do you have to say too many hasty generalizations on the edit summary? Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does it matter to you which pages are on my watchlist? That is not of your concern. I don't understand why you continually go against MOS when it has been pointed out you on multiple occasions (by multiple editors) that merging tables for 6 athletes or less is okay. For shooting pistol*shotgun/rifle should be left separate, which is why other countries have not been touched. As for grammar you may check the changes to get a hint on what change has been made. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:06, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Because every time when you edit, you kept on putting too many qualification links (in which they might be removed as soon as the team is finalized), and for some sports, I'm still against MOS. Remember we had a lengthy discussion before about this. I think you did not read my suggestions anymore for the reasons that you care the most: grammar (because some of my sentences have too many mistakes), especially the use of vocabulary and concise usage of words, and self-explanatory matter (can you differ between fact and opinion). I think you're getting too judgmental with my language already. For the grammar, you just need to simply specify it, so no other users might get annoyed with your reason. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Because every time when you edit, you kept on putting too many qualification links (in which they might be removed as soon as the team is finalized, why will they be removed it they are allowed by the MOS? You maybe against the MOS (and I agree in some cases with you), however with Rio just around the corner I think its best to edit with the current MOS in mind and in the future implement an updated MOS (which I am sure will be done before Tokyo...). For the most part your grammar is fine, however in some instances I have found grammatical errors that I needed to fix (keeping in mind my grammar is not perfect either). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Basement12, will the qualification links be removed once the team is already finalized? That's what you have been discussing before. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:19, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, Obviously we are all not perfect with the language. I'm also correcting and trying my best with my grammar. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

IMO they should not because readers will read the article long after the games are over and maybe would like to know qualification at that time. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:22, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but that may depend on the consensus if they would like to keep these links during and after the Games. We'll see. Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, really??? As I've stated I'd prefer if the qualification links were left permenently but whilst qualification is still going on then they really should be left in place. Removing them post-Games is a discussion for a different day. As for that tble on Finland it makes much more sense to combine when there are only 2 athletes in the same discipline - Basement12 (T.C) 10:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Why does the combination of less than six athletes happen on a different gender? Isn't the technique also applicable to the same gender, male or female, with less than six athletes? Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing them post-Games is a discussion for a different day. Kindly explain what will happen to these links? Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Raymarcbadz I don't understand your point. Can you rephrase it please Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234, I ask you and Basement 12. Why do we have to combine less than six athletes in a single table if they are different by gender? Isn't this technique also applicable to the same gender, male or female, with less than six athletes? Generally, less than six athletes (a combination of males and females) are placed on a single table by labelling Men's or Women's, whereas those belonging to a same gender leave without a label. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234, are all NOCs mandatory to have qualification links and follow the MOS guidelines in a very strict manner? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Because it reduces unnecessary splitting of tables (and length of articles). Especially for Finland, San Marino and Cyprus where all their shooting athletes are competing in the same discipline. As for the qualification links, they are not mandatory, however they are allowed and if added should be allowed to stay. My time is limited and I am slowly trying to add them to all pages whenever I can. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, we only have two months left before the Games. Can't you also label Men's or Women's even if it's a same gender? And why Finland, San Marino, and Cyprus? Are these your choices to emulate Canada's format? To be honest, as soon as the Games have already started, I think you should take the responsibility to put the results on the NOCs where you put the qualification links and the apply the MOS that you care for.

May I recall your suggestions again. Here is a list of sports where I think one table is good for countries with less than 6 athletes:

• Diving (each event has the same phases).
• Swimming (I think 6 or less events, should result in one table. All tripartite nations will have just 2 athletes/2 events. In the odd event that there are more than 6 events, but less than 6 athletes, we should split it).
• Archery (same headings for all events, only needs to be split when a nation qualifies a full men's and women's team).
• Badminton (I think we should split by singles/doubles)
• Boxing (all have the same headings, and ones where the round doesn't happen we use the n/a template).
• Canoeing (slalom/sprint separated with 6 or less = 1 table).
• Cycling (Road/BMX/Mountain biking)
• Gymnastics (trampoline)
• Fencing
• Golf
• Judo
• Modern pentathlon
• Rowing
• Sailing
• Table tennis
• Taekwondo
• Tennis
• Triathlon
• Beach volleyball
• Weightlifting

Which need separate tables:

• Gymnastics (artistic) – due to different headings
• Equestrian – due to different headings.

A mix of the above:

• Athletics (separate tables for track/field events, even with 6 or less athletes. However if its 6 or less of the same discipline, merge them. For ex. one male and two female field athletes + 2 track athletes = 2 tables (one for track and one for field). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
• Cycling track (separated by discipline; not gender).
• Shooting (I think Option 3 above is probably best, splitting it be discipline, rifle, shotgun and pistol irrespective of gender)
• Wrestling (I think we need to separate freestyle from greco-roman).

No explanation needed.

• Synchronized swimming
• Water polo
• Rhythmic gymnastics
• Field hockey
• Football
• Basketball
• Handball
• Rugby sevens
• Volleyball

Thoughts? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Define length of the article. It's still not clear again. Here are my thoughts.

• Diving – two options:
  • the distances can be removed on the events displayed on the tables. (e.g. instead of men's 3 m springboard, we'll just use men's springboard for Olympics)
  • split the tables between individual and synchronized events
• Table tennis – same case with archery (only needs to be split when a nation qualifies a full men's and women's team), so there's no explanation and effect needed, unless you want to merge the tables on both archery and table tennis for neatness
• Fencing – remove the word individual for individual events (e.g. men's individual foil = men's foil)
• Shooting – splitting it per discipline might increase more byte size, but we shall consider it. (could be arbitrary because it may be the same case on tables per gender)
• Swimming – kindly provide an example to clarify your case
• Cycling – there's no explanation or problem needed, we still use the same headings from the previous editions. They're all labeled with men's and women's across four sporting disciplines depending on the number of the competitors.
• Canoeing – no problem on merging tables, it has already been done before
• Golf, trampoline gymnastics, judo, modern pentathlon, taekwondo, tennis, triathlon, beach volleyball, and weightlifting – same case with canoeing
• Badminton – not necessary to split them between singles and doubles irrespective of gender.
• Wrestling – no explanation needed; keep the tables separated (men's freestyle, men's Greco-Roman, and women's freestyle)
• Athletics – not sure if we can classify these tables by gender or sport category. (most likely it's an arbitrary and questionable case)
• Sailing – three options
  • do we need to replace different names instead? (for RS:X = sailboard, for Laser and Laser Radial = dinghy; for Finn = heavyweight dinghy; for 470 = double dinghy; for 49er and 49erFX = skiff; for Nacra 17 = multihull); the case is still arbitrary and questionable;
  • keep the tables separated with respect to the unique names
  • add a gender column for easier identification of the sailors and then merge them on one table if there are few. (not necessary)

Please take note that even if the sport contains a table with one athlete only, you don't need headings (men or women) anymore. Just apply the same method with 6 or less athletes for transparency.

I would suggest that you should create them on a sandbox and test it for efficiency. Also, provide a link for it (use an NOC page containing almost all of the sports) to show the example. Do not put them yet on the main articles without letting other users (Qed237, Kante4, and Basement12 please take note) give their thoughts on your case in a more centralized discussion.

Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you read them again, may it be because of my grammar or my suggestions are too self-explanatory and ineffective. I'm sure you can't create them on a sandbox because you don't have much time.. Truthfully, you took much of your control to all of my suggestions to keep me away from my arguments, and let other users mute, so that you can voice out your opinion and judge what others are saying against yours. Whether I give Qed237, Kante4, and Basement12 their opinion , you just simply butt in to prove yourself that you're correct. Why do you always do that to me at all? What do you think about my suggestions now? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I quite literally have no idea what your points are at this stage. Men and women's events can and should be combined into one table with no issue if that's one of your questions. The events all have clear names as defined by the IOC (for sailing it can be a bit iffy but really sailboard vs RS:X makes zero difference it all links to the same article). And on the note of linking to the same article I don't think setting up all the by event articles as redirects was a smart plan, the redlinks would make it clear where articles were needed but currently 3 months out all the redirects remain. Seriously I have had more than enough of commenting on this squabbling, it is ridiculous and needs to stop, none of this is as complicated as you make out- Basement12 (T.C) 23:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Basement12, How about the events containing less than six athletes, but they belong to the same gender? Do we need to put headings or just label them with either Men's or Women's? Honestly, it's been over a month of ridicule and squabbling, and I'm getting stressed out of too many baseless and unnecessary changes on the tables and styling. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Merge them, merge them all! Just add men's and women's to the event name as you've been told countless times! The reason you're getting stressed out is because you don't listen to what you're being told and continue to make edits to your own preferred style. The example tables below are how I would expect to see them displayed

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Vesa Törnroos	Men's trap
Satu Mäkelä-Nummela	Women's trap

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Gordon Ireallyhavehadenoughofthisson	Men's trap
Steven Seriouslyjuststopthesquabblingolovski
Helen Pleasedonotwsteanymoreofmytimeonthisova	Women's trap

i.e. how Sportsfan is putting the tables - Basement12 (T.C) 09:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you also going to apply to all NOCs from London 2012? But you can't do that for artistic and rhythmic gymnastics, as well as athletics and wrestling because they have different modules and format, regarding the tables. How will you merge them?

The reason you're getting stressed out is because you don't listen to what you're being told and continue to make edits to your own preferred style. Is it okay for you that the event names does not matter with the width size? Did I definitely make the wrong techniques at all with tables? You and Sportsfan 1234 should know that I still argue with that kind of merging on rowing, sailing, and shooting because some of the event names are quite LONG, and I don't understand why Sportsfan 1234 merge tables on sailing, knowing that the boat names are quite unique. Are we trying to guess if the sailors are male or female?

How about this one?

Option 1

Women

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Ray Bassil	Trap

Option 2

Athlete	Event	Qualification		Semifinal		Final
		Points	Rank	Points	Rank	Points	Rank
Ray Bassil	Women's trap

Which one is better, @Basement12:? In option 2, you don't need to add a heading. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Option 2. The headings are only needed where we have multiple tables and aren't really desirable at all, they were compromise to stop a whole load of "===Men===" type headings from being used which caused TOC cluttering. The width isn't an issue I don't think. Take for example Finland at the 2014 Winter Olympics, on my laptop screen all events look OK and display on a single line, on my (much narrower) mobile screen some of the event names wrap onto a second line, again looks fine. As for sailing, they can still be merged, again I really don't see your concerns. And as for wrestling and gymnastics, etc. that is yet another issue where you've been told everyone's opinions, bringing it up again makes it seem like you are being deliberately awkward. But just to clarify for you once and for all... Freestyle and Greco-Roman are considered different disciplines and should have separate tables. Athletics and gymnastics need multiple tables as they have different formts. And yes this should apply for nation articles in 2012, and 1908, and the 1998 Winter Games, 1960 Summer Paralympic, 2002 Winter Paralympics and all others before after and in-between. - Basement12 (T.C) 11:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Basement12, Raymarcbadz, and Sportsfan 1234: First of all these kind of things should be discussed at WT:OLYMPICS so everyone in the project may join, I had no idea this was going on. If two editors have a dispute, take it to eachother but when different alternatives is discussed a project is better (when it expands over several articles). Personally I have always been for splitting, to be consistent and 6 athletes seems very arbitrary. I understand the TOC issue, so as a suggestion, how about always having an extra column for gender? Qed237 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

For example:

Gender	Athlete	Event	Race													Net points	Final rank
			1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	M*
Men	Kaarle Tapper	Laser											—
	Tapio Nirkko	Finn											—
	Joonas Lindgren Niklas Lindgren	470											—
Women	Tuuli Petäjä-Sirén	RS:X
	Tuula Tenkanen	Laser Radial											—
	Niki Blässar Mikaela Wulff	470											—
	Camilla Cedercreutz Noora Ruskola	49erFX

M = Medal race; EL = Eliminated – did not advance into the medal race

Or something like that? Qed237 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Qed237, great idea. But the athlete and gender columns should swapped places with one another. Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding an extra column for gender is the last thing I think we need to be doing. The reason for splitting isn't just for TOC but also to prevent having multiple tables with only 1 02 athletes in each or the smaller nations In this exact example splitting into men's and women's would be fine, or if not just add the gender to the piped links e.g. Women's RS:X or Men's Finn or Open Narca 17. And I fully agree on the location of such conversations, this was npt intended to be sucha discussion, I'll copy the whole thing to WT:OLYMPICS now - Basement12 (T.C) 12:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The above copied in from User talk:Raymarcbadz. Raymarcbadz, Qed237, Sportsfan 1234 plese continue the discusion here and not across a disparate set of user talkpages. Thanks- Basement12 (T.C) 12:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

For fencing, do we still need to use the word individual on the tables, or just omit it instead? Raymarcbadz (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

That opening line should be "...six or fewer..." Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Since we are discussing tables, for athletics how will it be done? Obviously track, field and combined events need to be separated, but what about road events (walks & marathon)? You can argue that they are a different discipline. Overall I think they are fine combined with track events. The other question comes in the form of combining them. Let’s say a nation has six qualified athletes; 2 men track, 1 men field, 2 women track and 1 women field would you make 2 tables (1 track and 1 field) or four, 1 for each gender and discipline? Also would the six be a total maximum or a maximum for each discipline, for example let’s say a nation has 11 qualified athletes; 2 men track, 4 men field, 2 women track and 3 women field would you make four tables or would you combine the track tables (since they have less than six athletes) and have two field tables?JoshMartini007 (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

For athletics, track and road events, although they are a different discipline, must be combined because both of them referred to time, and 10,000 metres (both men and women) has only one final. Not sure if we can combine them altogether by discipline. I just simply arrange them by gender to make a pattern of disciplines more constant and simple: track and road events, field events, and combined events (decathlon and heptathlon). Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody have a source, that shows Australian Governor General William Deane opened the 2000 Summer Olympic Games, as a representative of Queen Elizabeth II? Also, some further input at that article, on this topic, would be appreciated :) GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Link Hack (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

We neeed a source that says word-per-word that Deane represented Elizabeth II, however. Otherwise, the protesting editor won't budge. GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that what "vice regal" implies? Hack (talk) 02:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what StAnselm thinks. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see the value of the "on behalf of" text used in that table, not just for the Sydney entry. Hack (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the "...representing Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II" part, that StAnselm seems to be demanding a clearer source for. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Have you had a look to see what the official report says? - Basement12 (T.C) 07:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I looked through it & it doesn't mention where the Australian Governor-General opened the 2000 Games, as a representative of the Queen of Australia. We need the exact wording, for the editor-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay try this link saying that QEII bestowed the honour of opening the Games on Deane or this archived Associated Press article calling him her representative. Or [6] or [7]. Those should clear up any arguments - Basement12 (T.C) 12:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Basement12. Hopefully, those will satisfy his concerns. GoodDay (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, a two-editor discussion on Talk:Mie Østergaard Nielsen#Proposed move is stuck and could benefit from additional input. Thanks, Gap9551 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237, Basement12, Sportsfan 1234, and Raymarcbadz: Please have a look at the edits of Secret Agent Julio (alt) (talk · contribs) who is redirecting the football templates. Are those edits correct or do we stick with the templates, which i think is better. Nevermind, not a single discussion was held... Kante4 (talk) 08:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: To me I have no idea why Secret Agent Julio is doing this and to me it is just wrong. Qed237 (talk) 09:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Think I might have figured it out. He is a opponent of footballbox collapsible and has attempted to make sure we use regular football box everywhere and remove use of templates. However I have reverted their every edit on both Olympics and UEFA Euro 2016 (unless I missed something). Qed237 (talk) 09:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Just saw it, nice work. I left a message at his talkpage to discuss it first. Don't see a reason to change anything. Kante4 (talk) 09:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Sorry, I apologise for the Olympic edits, in hindsight I realise it was a mistake. But I do not understand the revert for Euro 2016. It was a simple adjustment to use transclusion, like Champions League articles use for the 'TwoLegResult' template. It saves time and server space, while preventing the two match boxes from being out of sync. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kante4: Same case with Qed237. I think we should stick with the templates. Simplifying the group matches through transclusion in a designated article could be impossible, unless there's a clear explanation for it. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Following a recent discussion at WP:VPR, there is consensus for an opt-in bot task that automatically assesses the class of articles based on classes listed for other project templates on the same page. In other words, if WikiProject A has evaluated an article to be C-class and WikiProject B hasn't evaluated the article at all, such a bot task would automatically evaluate the article as C-class for WikiProject B.

If you think auto-assessment might benefit this project, consider discussing it with other members here. For more information or to request an auto-assessment run, please visit User:BU RoBOT/autoassess. This is a one-time message to alert projects with over 1,000 unassessed articles to this possibility. ~ Rob^Talk 01:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this change isn't too controversial, in most cases we already to it anyway. Currently we have wording in WP:OLYMOSNAT that suggests all athletes should be ordered alphabetically by surname;

"More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team, must be arranged alphabetically according to their last names".

Clearly we don't implement this across the board, particularly where there are tables containing a mix of men's and women's events, where we tend to put men's events grouped first before women's, or in cases where we order events by distance/weight class etc.. I suggest that if the alternatives are better the we should alter the wording of the manual of style for nation articles to formalise this (and ensure it is implemented consistently), changing the wording to e.g.

More than a single athlete in a sport category, whether individual, pair, or team: athletes must be arranged first with all men's events grouped before women's events ("Men's" is alphabetically first), then within the gender groups by increasing event distance/weight category/etc. (if applicable), and finally alphabetically according to the last names of the athletes.

As an example of the effect this would have, think about Australia at the 2016 Summer Olympics#Taekwondo. As the guidelines currently read this should really look like the below (version 1)

Athlete	Event	Round of 16	Quarterfinals	Semifinals	Repechage	Bronze Medal	Final
		Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Rank
Safwan Khalil	Men's −58 kg
Carmen Marton	Women's −67 kg
Caroline Marton	Women's −57 kg
Hayder Shkara	Men's −80 kg

But currently the guidelines are ignored in line with what I'm proposing (version 2):

Athlete	Event	Round of 16	Quarterfinals	Semifinals	Repechage	Bronze Medal	Final
		Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Rank
Safwan Khalil	Men's −58 kg
Hayder Shkara	Men's −80 kg
Caroline Marton	Women's −57 kg
Carmen Marton	Women's −67 kg

So which does everyone prefer the status quo (version 1) or the tables resulting form this new proposal (version 2)? Personally I'd lean towards 2 - Basement12 (T.C) 13:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I've always preferred ordering by event oppose to by athlete. To the average person they are more likely to be looking at their nation's performance in a certain event oppose the performance of a certain athlete (and usually if they know that detail they tend to know what event the athlete is performing in). As with your example it seems illogical for someone to order the events out of sequence. Order by last names can be done if two or more athletes are competing in the same event. JoshMartini007 (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Version 2. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with everything above, so version 2. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree on Version 2. Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Woohoo! For once it looks like everyone is in agreement on that. One further question whilst we're considering these things, in cases where we have both should we order by discipline or distance first? I'm mainly thinking of swimming here

• By discipline would mean: backstroke (100m , 200m), breaststroke (100m, 200m), butterfly (100, 200), freestyle (50, 100, 200...), IM (200, 400). (alternatively we use the medley oder of free,

• By distance then it would be; 50m (freestyle), 100 (back, breast, butter, free), 200 (ba, br, bu, fr, IM), 400 (fr, IM), etc.

Currently a mix of styles is used, with the most common being all swimmers listed alphabetically (e.g. Great Britain) or ordered by discipline but with freestyle first (which seems an odd choice) (e.g. Canada). This is relevant even on single gender tables and could also be a factor for sprint canoeing (c and k events) and possibly shooting (pistol, rifle) - Thoughts Basement12 (T.C) 14:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Since one athlete may participate in more than one event I would order alphabetically by athlete. Otherwise readers may look up a name and then miss it being again further down the table, and I think we should have the info about one athlete in one place. Qed237 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Qed237 in the case of arranging the list of athletes alphabetically, especially when he or she is competing in more than a single event. Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz, Qed237 so in fact neither of you agree with the initial proposal on ordering athletes as set out above, you'd rather stick with the current ordering alphabetically? At least for sports where athletes may appear in more than one event (athletics, swimming, others?)? - Basement12 (T.C) 16:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I have alwayus been positive to separate men and women, and they should be in different tables. I even suggested an extra "gender" column if we really had to display them together. So men first and women after (version 2) is absolutely no problem, but after that I would choose alphabetically. Qed237 (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

With that extra column it is also very clear that we order by first column (men first, then women), and after that we order based on second column (name). Qed237 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The result database of the IOC does not include discontinued sports. This can be seen on e.g. mixed team (compare 1900) and Japan (compare 2008). This may lead to some sourcing difficulties, particularly for old Olympics and the all-time medal table. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I noticed most of the recent field hockey players don't have an image. I'm not into field hockey, but made a load of image during the interland NED - NZL yesterday. Hopefully someone can help tagging the images. Thanks, Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Since the Refugee Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics will be very much in line with other similar instances of independent participants of the past, the infobox used should be one unified that ties all of these instances together: {{Infobox Olympics Independents}}. Usage amongst the various occurrences seems inconsistent and there's no easy way to jump from one instance to another. Jmj713 (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

i.e. use ;Men, not ===Men===. Bad idea, worse to enforce that via the MOS. I've edited Olympic results extensively for almost a decade, fortunately I have NEVER seen this policy applied there. However, on United States at the 2016 Summer Olympics‎ suddenly Raymarcbadz pulls this MOS issue. On that page is some of the most complex wikiformatting I have seen. The more complex the formatting, the fewer users will be able to figure out where to edit, even where the are on the page. They will still try and formatting mistakes will follow, usually just as the page is busy when results are coming in and readers are looking at wikipedia for information. By having distinct headers, breaks to reduce the amount of oblique code to sort through, it will greatly reduce the chance of mistakes. Many events duplicate information, that is, there are events of the same name for both genders in many sports and some sports have combined events, meaning even word searches will not get the user to the correct location. Trackinfo (talk) 03:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Pages like the United States is why we use the current format. If we use what you are proposing then things get too cluttered on the table of contents. I don't think it would be an issue for people filling in tables, it's easy enough to search for the event and athlete in each section. JoshMartini007 (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Over at WP:Women in Red we have been discussing the possibility of having an Olympics themed event in August. If you have any ideas please feel free to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas#August 2016. Knope7 (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

If someone, administrators or anybody involved in the WikiProject Olympics, can help us to end once for all the edit wars between User:Sportsfan 1234 and User:Raymarcbadz, it will be more than appreciated. I think that the attitude of user Sportsfan 1234 towards others is in cause here : he is rude, demanding, uncooperative, and try to intimidate several experienced contributors, including me and Raymarcbadz, of blocking or reporting for vandalism even if other users had only suggested different views of thinking and showed respectful behaviour toward the user.

If anybody can just calm him down, it will be great, and more important, remind him that he is neither elected, nor ruled himself as an administrator of the WikiProject Olympics, thus he has no powers to block anyone or to act like an administrator, and that he should always tried to discuss with respect instead of insulting, intimidating, and creating endless edit wars by reverting systematically the work of some veterans contributors.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,

TGG23

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

TheGreenGiant23 and I tried to fight the case, but ended up unacceptable by the administrators. If we can discuss all of these matters related to MOS, NOC, prose, rosters, and vice versa in preparation for the Games, please do so with respect and courtesy. Too much reverting and edit warring without a courteous and reliable discussion is irritating.

Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, do you deserve to accept judgments from other users with your pride, attitude, and behavior? Why can't you answer my questions? Is it because of my grammar, and therefore, you want to continue to judge me because my English is bad. Do you want and Basement12 to control the project as admins? Why do you keep on using the power to revert to intimidate people? Kante4, Qwe144, and Qed237, any reactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymarcbadz (talk • contribs)

@Raymarcbadz: I have one question. Where is the original discussion? Qed237 (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Qed237, I'll post the links in the opening discussion. Sorry I forgot. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I do agree with the statements about Sportsfan 1234. Bullying needs to be stopped. Qwe144 (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Reporting every user on vandalism and disruptive editing is irritating, intimidating, and threatening. We don't want other users, especially with the members of WikiProject Olympics, to get pissed off from Sportsfan 1234, who endlessly kept on reverting edits about the terrifying "MOS" rules and unpleasant "grammar" corrections. He needs to learn how to be more courteous and respectful with others, including you and me. Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that someone has added List of athletes per sport (for the 2016 Games) on the main page templates. I think this is redundant because each nation page will have information on the athletes competing (and the categories as well). Should we remove them? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Please remove! --Osplace 01:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I think having a separate article for beach volleyball is necessary (and a separate heading on nation pages as well). Thoughts? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. It would be like making separate articles for each discipline for cycling or gymnastics. What's making the article a bit cluttered is adding the results for indoor volleyball on the main page (this is the same for all team sports). Shouldn't that go in the event article? JoshMartini007 (talk) 03:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Keep together, there is a main article about volleyball then separte articles for w/m indoor and w/m beach. --Osplace 01:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello WP:OLY. I have noticed users creating lists of athletes per sport (I just saw an Archery one). I think these pages are redundant to the qualification articles; event articles and nation articles as they all list the athlete. I'm wondering what (if any) the consensus is on this issue? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please let's remove that list! Have been reported before. --Osplace 01:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Project Members, a -somewhat heated- discussion took place yesterday on Talk:Independent_Olympic_Athletes_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics yesterday, amongst other related to the point whether two Russian athletes at the moment in the nomination process (but not definitely nominated/selected), should be added as athletes with a "disclaimer" in that section (and in the infobox) about their status.

Based on your experience with related articles, could you comment on Talk:Independent_Olympic_Athletes_at_the_2016_Summer_Olympics#participation_status? L.tak (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The total number of medals for Great Britain does not tally with the gold/silver/bronze medals listed. Unable to establish where the mistake is to edit it myself.

Hi. A discussion is ongoing at {{Footer Olympic Champions 4x100 m Men}} about what links should be included for the winning relay team. Potentially, this may lead to consensus about how links should be used on other relay champion navigation boxes. Please contribute to the discussion here.

Numerous articles of athletes who will participate in the 2016 Summer Olympics have no necessary navboxes and categories (for example, only 123 footballer articles were added Category:Footballers at the 2016 Summer Olympics, many articles of team sports competitors and coaches have neither navboxes nor categories, many teams have no their squad navboxes). I want to solve this but have no time. Who can complete this task and watch related articles? JackHoang (talk) 07:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello guys,

The Wikimedia Community Brazilian Group of Education and Research launched today the Wiki Loves the Olympics, a pilot project of an international photo contest about the Olympics and Paralympic games.

Important links:

• WLO official site
• Commons:Commons:Wiki_Loves_the_Olympics WLO on commons
• WLO contest page on pt.wiki

Social networks:

• Facebook
• Twitter

Our focus is Brazil, but the contest is open for all the world.

We are fixing some issues during this week but the contest is already open for submissions!

We need some help to translate our templates and banners on commons and spread that project around our international community.

• Templates on commons
• Central Notice

Comments and help are welcome! Best regards Rodrigo Padula (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for images, Agência Brasil has plenty of images of the Olympics that can by uploaded to Commons using the copyright tag {{ABr}}. Hope this helps. ~★ nmaia ^d 18:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Might have been discussed but when listing the age of the competitor, do we use the date of opening ceremonies or the close of the games? –B2Project^(Talk) 01:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Many sub-articles of some sports (for example Judo at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Women's 48 kg) have no any necessary reference. They must be added in order to improve articles' quality. JackHoang (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on various Nation at the Olympcs articles as some users have been inputting some nationalist-driven edits. Not every such article is yet on line with the standard participation table but most are. Hopefully by the end of Rio we will be at 100%. Jmj713 (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:46, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a project member who is familiar enough with Olympics-related lists to get 2016 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations promoted to Featured list status? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Before it's even nominated, the lead would need to be expanded, and at the very least, sourced. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

If a record for a single event is broken multiple times (for example, Weightlifting Men's 56kg C&J), for the new records section, should we list the "new" record that was afterwards surpassed? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

We've had the situation happen in track and field. Here's how it is expressed in a world record progression: [[13]], I would think it would also work in weightlifting. An actual Olympic event where it happened multiple times is Athletics at the 1968 Summer Olympics – Men's triple jump and obviously this article needs development. I'll have to get back to writing that up. Trackinfo (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this edit (which is btw edit-warring) ok? I have taken the formulation from one of the 2012 articles. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

This text was only shown on TWO events out of many many more. It is okay to post it on ALL events that have no records. Regards 89.25.87.226 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Montell 74 thinks it is unnecessary though, so you can talk with him if you want. 89.25.87.226 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

All, just looking for your opinions on some content on the Israel at the 2016 Summer Olympics page.

Based on Olympic rules anyone eligible for citizenship of a country (whether they have it or not) is able to compete under that country's flag. Under the Law of Return any Jew is eligible for Israeli citizenship, see [14] for more info on this specific for Israel.

Due to this, the Israeli media outlets gives extensive coverage to the Jewish athletes who compete for other countries, this year being 7 for the US and 1 for the UK, see [15] and [16] as a couple of examples (many other examples in Hebrew as well as English). I added this info into Israel's page as a topic of note. Besides for it being noteworthy in my opinion, I felt many people looking at Israel's page would be interested in this information as well. The content was given one small paragraph, without its own heading. The content was then reverted with the explanation of the article being about Israel at the olympics, not Jews.

What are your opinions on this? Is their eligibility and large media coverage by Israeli news sources qualify it for inclusion? Thanks - Galatz^Talk 02:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think's worth including. It's not all that uncommon for athletes to have dual citizenship or to move to a new country to have a better chance of making the national team. It happens a lot with the United States. It isn't really relevant to the page of the country they are not representing. If the Israeli media is providing reliable coverage of athletes, I would think the content of the coverage could be a helpful source for some athlete pages.Knope7 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The page "China at 2004 Summer Olympics" says that it was the nation's ninth appearance in the summer olympics.Although China's first olympic participation was in the year 1952, it boycotted all the olympic games that was held untill 1984.So, technically the 2004 Summer Olympics at Athens was China's 7th and not 9th Olympic appearance. Thank You! Arunkxip (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello guys! CC: @TheReluctantNerd:, @Gap9551:, @Ellipsis22:, @Mg27127:, @Qwe144:, @Sportsfan 1234:, @Basement12:, and @F1lover22:, @Qby:, @Necrid Master:, not sure who else to ping.

I've noticed that the articles have already been published for most of the athletes at the Games. Here's the problem. Why did you leave some of the athletes in the sporting event articles redlinked, especially in boxing, rowing, sailing, shooting, swimming, table tennis, fencing and judo, as well as those competing for China, Chinese Taipei, and South Korea? Kindly create all of them! We badly need them for enough recognition at the Games. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Articles about competing athletes are Biographies of Living Persons. Notability shouldn't be a problem for Olympians, but they still need to have references to reliable sources. It takes time to write articles and there are thousands of competing athletes. While I would also like to see more athletes have relevant articles, we shouldn't lose sight of quality. Knope7 (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

For now I try to make bios for athletes that achieve particularly well. That includes athletes from the countries you mention by the way. Gap9551 (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I realized that there are too many sub-articles of many events of some disciplines are still being redirect page although related events have started yet (even finished), for example Rowing at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's coxless four, Equestrian at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Team eventing... Many head paragraph tense of sub-articles of finished event are not changed (e.g. is behing held). They must be solved as soon as possible. JackHoang (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

As of August 13, many articles of the finished events are still redirect page or have uncompleted information. JackHoang (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. They'll be created in due course. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please keep an eye on Kuwait at the Olympics as various editors keep adding IOA totals to KUW totals. Jmj713 (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey there! I want to bring up a topic of discussion surrounding infoboxes on individual events at the 2016 Summer Olympics. On these various articles, I've taken the liberty of replacing most of the infoboxes' default header images, mostly either using File:Olympic rings without rims.svg, not using any images at all, or using copyrighted images files of the official pictograms, which I had uploaded with a fair use rationale for its use on general event articles, such as File:Canoeing (Slalom), Rio 2016.png for Canoeing at the 2016 Summer Olympics. However, those pictograms were being instead used for articles such as Canoeing at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's slalom K-1 and Canoeing at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's slalom C-2 as well through edits by other users. I replaced these images with available images from Wikimedia's 2016 Summer Olympics category. If an appropriate image of a particular event was available, I would add it as the main image in the infobox to illustrate the event in action, if not, I would add an appropriate image of the venue used to hold the event instead. My rationale for this is that this has been done before; Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle uses an image of the event's medal ceremony, for example. I also decided to add {{use dmy dates}} to all these articles as well, to help out the techies behind Wikipedia with date formatting of articles, and cleaned up the spacing in infoboxes of all of these articles, so that it'd be somewhat easier for an source editor to sift through the infobox's parameters. Here's an example of one of the articles I contributed to, showing my additions.

However, my edits have not been received well by two editors, an ip user, @89.25.87.226:, and @Neprotivo1:, who both went to the effort to revert the near entirety of my edits, which included removing the {{use dmy dates}} templates, and in some occasions, reverting back to the copyrighted pictograms, in addition to the removal of images either depicting the event in action or the event's host venue. There was no explanation for the reverts other than Neprotivo giving a vague response in a coupe of edit summaries stating "these pictures are completely unnecessary". I personally think it's hyperbole to state that they were "completely uncessary"; its not like I added an inappropriate image, such as an irrelevant image of a bag of fruits or something! The images were well related to the Olympics and each event in question. I saw that on some of the pages, @Buttons to Push Buttons: and @Ymblanter: disagreed with these reverts and help restore some of my edits, with varying degrees of resistance from Neprotivo1. @Jkudlick: and @Dl2000: were also nice to restore some of the {{use dmy dates}} templates that were purged in the process. @F1lover22: also had a few words to say, along with Ymblanter, over at Neprotivo1's talk page, regarding his edits, while the ip user has made a habit of blanking their talk page after every message.

So, to cut to the chase, am I in the wrong here? I honestly think it'd be better to see the actual events in action, if free media images are available. If not, an image of the venue hosting the event to suffice. I don't believe these edits to be controversial, but if you guys think otherwise, then I'm more than happy to discuss. I'll also slap down a list of articles I've made edits to, and their status, down below:

Philip Terry Graham 04:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the Cycling at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's individual road race article, I think the best picture is clearly of the cyclists at the start line, rather than the generic tourist shot of what could be anywhere. The other user doesn't seem to want to engage in a real discussion about why they keep reverting it either. Kudos for finding a decent pic. I'm going to be bold and restore it (on that one article). And the date format tag should not be removed once placed on an article. At worst, it should be changed to mdy format if it's US-centric, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

As far as I understand, this [17] is the article about Martinho Nobre, the man who took the Olympic Oath on behalf of the officials. It would be helpful in order to create an article about him, as there is such page available of majority of the people who have had this honor. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Translated to English–B2Project^(Talk) 01:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Our page for the military patrol at the 1924 winter olympics points out that it was an official event at the time, and its medals were listed in IOC's database. Thus, despite various secondary sources treating the event as a demonstration sport, we've treated it as an early Biathlon event.

However, things appear to have changed. Searching IOC's database for medalists from the event, such as Denis Vaucher and Alfred Aufdenblatten shows the individuals, but they're listed as having no medals. More noticably, Switzerland's country page [18] lists their medal count from the game as being 1 gold and 1 bronze only, likewise indicating they've lost their gold medal in military patrol from the Chamonix games.

Based on these findings, I conclude that we should downgrade the military patrol event from the 1924 games to a demonstration event, and deduct the medals from the respective countries' medal counts. (I suppose the individuals' medals should also be noted as earned in a event later downgraded to demonstration event.) -- Lejman (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, their counts for Finland don't count the military patrol silver either, but it strangely counts a bronze from Paris 1924 that we lack, and a gold(!) from Albertville 1992 that most likely is the Speed skiing event that generally is viewed as a demonstration event. IOC's lack of consistency is frustrating. (I tried to check their counts for Sweden but failed to, as their strange use of Java only works for some countries for me.) -- Lejman (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

As I noted above it seems like the IOC no longer includes medals from discontinued sports (such as baseball and tug-of-war) in the medal counts on their NOC pages or in their database. This may lead to several issues regarding sourcing. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll just leave it be... Silly IOC. -- Lejman (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Generally ranking is the most central aspect of an athlete's or team's result. While knowing how far they jumped or how fast they ran (or swam) is interesting, it's how they rank relative to other athletes that determines medals. Given that, I think the athlete's ranking should be given when it can be given.

There are times when ranking is skipped in our tables. Notably in the qualification in Artistic Gymnastics (which doubles as final ranking for athletes that did not qualify further), but also in sports like Judo, where the competitor didn't finish in the top 8. In some events (like Tennis [19]), official final ranking isn't presented. Final rankings are given in many events we lack ranking for though, like Judo [20] (where everyone is ranked according to round eliminated), Handball [21] (every team ranked 1 through 12th) and Wrestling [22] (shared 3rd and 5th placements, worst athlete ranked 19th).

I propose we present the athlete's or team's final rankings in events where official rankings are given. The exception can accept is in sports like Swimming, where the ranking in the round the athlete was eliminated in always equals the athlete's final ranking. -- Lejman (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I still insist we should present the official final rankings for participants in judo [23] and taekwondo [24]. Also event qualification rankings in artistics gymnastics [25] (where all participants are officially ranked in every event except in - for whatever reason - the event vault). I'm however not arguing for results in tennis, nor table tennis (because I haven't seen any official ranking lists presented in those sports). -- Lejman (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Just a side note. All participants aren't ranked in the vault qualification, because two jumps are required to perform for the vault event, but only the first jump counts towards the all-around event. Many jump just once to get a score for the all-around. But I support listing all final rankings when a source is available. Hautala (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why a different sidebar is being used at Triathlon at the 2016 Summer Olympics compared to Triathlon at the 2012 Summer Olympics and all other Rio 2016 sports? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor is now changing quite a few of the sidebar templates (rugby 7s for example). Is there any consensus on this? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

No, I do not think there was any consensus related to this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not agree with the change. However, there needs to be a discussion on this. I have reverted some of the changed made, and they should remain until a consensus on changing it arises. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are classification points used as the scores in Wrestling sections on Country at the 2016 Summer Olympics pages like this? I had an argument about it with Raymarcbadz as I tried to enter the score in the Rio page 1 and he undid it... instead of 6–0 he wants it to be 3–0.

I read about it and what I understood was that Technical points are the score that decide the match result. Classification points are given by the referees after the match and their only purpose is to rank the wrestlers from seventh place down. In case of the medal matches class points are totally irrelevant. Technical points are awarded during the match for the actions wrestler perform. Places 1–6 are decided with technical points, so at least medal matches should use technical points score. --Klõps (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

From an outside perspective it seems kinda odd, as the points shown throughout the match is technical points, and that's used to determined the winner. It's also presented on the official match pages (like [26]). Contradictory, the class points are listed on the standings page ([27]). I feel I'm not deeply enough involved with the sport to have a strong preference for either choice. Is it merely a matter of "match points vs set points", or is there something more advanced about the class points? Does anyone know if you always can predict the class point result when you know the tech points (and how the match ended)? -- Lejman (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

It's much better if we can just display both of them on the scores simultaneously (both technical and classification)? Or propose a new table to generate results containing both scores for transparency and clarity to the wrestling rules. What do you guys think? I'm sticking to the original format that I used from London 2012? But because many of you place technical scores over classification, and you're getting confused when I replace them with classification points, I do not know what else should we need to improve. If you want to see what the NOC articles have been done at the previous Games pertaining to the scoring method in wrestling, take a look at this one. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Klõps and Lejman, I think Mohsen1248 has indeed a full grasp on the advancements to the use of classification points, and he'll explain why these wrestling rules are entirely different from the other combat sports that involve scoring. Again, Sportsfan 1234 gave me the same problem about the scoring for Canada. BS. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm looking forward to his input, Raymarcbadz! I still find it confusing we show one score on the country page (class points) and the other score on the event page (tech points), without any explanation. Going for either is better than a mixed bag. (Edit: I still would like your input on the headline above this one!) -- Lejman (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I took some time and read the rules from United World Wrestling site – International Wrestling Rules

It makes it quite clear that class points are a tool to rank wrestlers in a tournament format from 7th place downward. page 15: The loser is eliminated and ranked according to the classification points marked, except wrestlers who lost against one of the finalists as they take part in the repechage for the 3rd or 5th places.

In a single match winner is decided by: 1) fall, 2)technical points, 3) highest value of awarded technical points, 4) least amount of cautions, 5) the last technical point awarded. Classification points are awarded regarding to the match result not the other way. So why this system to rank the dropped out wrestlers should be presented at all? And really why should country pages present results differently from event pages – that's what confused me in the first place.--Klõps (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw this discussion on my notification list, let me explain that only "technical points" matters. in past we had different system and classification points had much more importance, even though they changed the rules long time ago but FILA/UWW still uses them. until 2012 they had a system like Tennis, there are some ways to win a match in wrestling, but mostly matches finish by technical score, if you fall/pin someone the "technical score" doesn't matter, even if you are down by 9pts. (something like a knock-out) or if you win by 3-cautons disqualification. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Quite dramatic rule changes then. So what do you think – does score 5–1^F (F being winner by fall) say more about the match than class points 5–0^VT (5–0 being the class points awarded for victory by fall by the rules and VT abbreviation of the same)?--Klõps (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

yes of course, but if you ask me, if a match finishes by fall, you better only mention "fall" , because the result doesn't really matter. if you want to mention the result something like Fall^(5–1) is a better idea to me. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's much clearer.--Klõps (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

As a reader I found it surprising that a match I watched end 1-1 (last point being the decider) was being listed as "3-1". Reading through the discussion (including the overflow to a user talk page) my take is that the technical score should be given (noting falls by e.g. a superscript F as I've seen on some event pages) and then including the "PP", "PO", "VT" etc. legends, which (to people who understand the classification points system) would provide the classification point info as it seems there is a one-to-one correlation between e.g. "PP" and "3-1". Furthermore, the legends provide info on whether the game went to full time or terminated prematurely. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For now, we'll just place the classification scores on the NOC, unless you want to change them and remove the legend instantly. I have no time to put and correct so many errors, and answer too many questions and complaints from you pertaining to the issue, as I am currently working on the results for each NOC. Please bear my patience and inconvenience. Sorry! Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:52, August 2016 (UTC)

Sanity prevails in the end, thankfully!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Mohsen1248, you said that classification points were more important than the technical in the past. How come it became less important and the technical points took over? What were the other changes to the wrestling rules? From what I knew, only the Greco-Roman adjusted the gap on the technical superiority from 10 to 8. Sportsfan 1234, thankful for what? Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:16, August 2016 (UTC)

In past it was important to win the match by fall. now it doesn't matter how to win, they used to have a weird system of negative classification points, winning by fall had zero "bad points", winning by final score had 1 "bad point" and etc. any wrestler with 6 negative points was eliminated. I remember we had a wrestler who won 6 matches in a row and still got eliminated ! even back in 2000/2004 they had a round robin system, (they still use it for Youth Olympics) classification points was important for the group stage. for 2008 and 2012 they use a set-scoring system like Tennis. winner had to win two out of 3 periods, I think only rules back in 1996 was a bit similar to the new rules. almost a direct elimination format with repechage for everybody. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This makes wrestling a good example why it is not a good principle to religiously stick to standards and manuals-of-style. If every tournament uses different rules, you should end up with different notation styles. Hautala (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please use the original scores, don't use the irrelevant secondary rating system. The rules are different in this year. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

The rating system is called classification scoring, be specific with the wrestling terms. I know the rules are different from the previous Games. How come the classification system becomes irrelevant and baseless? Kindly explain your case. If ever, suggest a table that display the results of wrestling with a combined technical and classification score. In the Rio 2016 website, the standings of each wrestling event show only the classification rating, and not the technical scores that the wrestlers had collected in every match. ! Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

At the Rio 2016 venue, the wrestlers, managers and spectators see the real score (12–10, for example) on the scoreboard, the official website use the real score on the top of match page (12–10). So these classification points do not mean anything, totally irrelevant secondary rating system (3–1), as it was said by editors on your talkpage. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In your case, do you want to change the format in wrestling by displaying technical scores for all NOCs, instead of the classification rating system that you find it not user and spectator friendly, irrelevant, and inappropriate. What's the difference from London 2012? How do we know if there's a tie between two wrestlers, a victory by fall, forfeit, or injury. How will you score them? Another suggestion is to develop an abbreviation template that will determine the rating of each wrestler in every match, similar to the athletics abbreviation template. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

It seems clear that the wrestling federation has changed which points matter compared to earlier games, and that now the technical points are the main points of interest. We should leave the classification points intact in our tables for earlier games, and use technical points this olympic game, as it's the main thing. So, we don't need to revert any of your work from previous olympics! :) That said, a template table for sports like wrestling, taekwondo and judo would be awesome. -- Lejman (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

In that case, you take the responsibility to change the scores into technical for all NOCs competing in wrestling, and add the legend that the IP user has posted in the Ukraine article. Btw, kindly replace the words "Technical superiority" in ST, to "Great superiority". Maybe you can contribute to the WP:OLYMOSNAT by adding format rules related to wrestling. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Some answers. if there's a tie between two wrestlers: simply W 8–8 ^PP. a victory by fall, forfeit, or injury. How will you score them? – simply W 8–8 ^VT (if by fall) or W 8–8 ^VB (if by injury/default/dsq, see updated key legend) 95.133.211.190 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please anybody create template {{Wrestling key legend}} and insert a new wrestling key legend from Ukraine to use a one key template in all other NOC articles. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If there's a tie between two wrestlers, just add a plus sign for the winner in the PP or VT score. In case a wrestler is injured, just add an r sign on the score of the losing opponent. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Wrestling was about to be kicked out of the Olympics [28], but drastic rule changes saved the spot for it. So there is no need to change anything in the previous Olympics and which ever way the scores were marked 2012 does not matter in 2016.

2. Raymarcbadz, You ask how classification system is irrelevant. Irrelevance comes from context. So, in the context of the countries Olympic performance pages what matters is how a match between wrestler A and wrestler B concluded. Relevance of the classification points comes after the tournament to rank places downward from 7th. So pretty minor relevance in the context of the whole tournament. Class points are merely as points given in the ball games win 3p, tie 1p, loss 0p, but in wrestling loser may also be given 1 point.

3. Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) is outdated – the paragraph about wrestling has been unchanged from 2012 – before the rule changes.

4. In the Rio 2016 website, the standings of each wrestling event show only the classification rating – that's not true, the Rio page shows tech points, tech points were on scorebords besides the Wrestling mats etc.

Final Classification Report from rio (note the line between 5th and 7th. wrestlers under the line are ranked by class points)

As in this report classification points may be listed in the event pages in the Final standing list. Women's freestyle 58 kg#Final standing. Also in nations page at the end of the row there's columns Opposition Result & Rank maybe there can be a column class points?

5. How do we know if there's a tie between two wrestlers, a victory by fall, forfeit, or injury.

Athlete	Event	Qualification	Round of 16	Quarterfinal	Semifinal	Repechage 1	Repechage 2	Final / BM	CP	Rank
		Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result	Opposition Result
Wrestler A	−98 kg	Wrestler B W 7−3	Wrestler C W 6+−6	Wrestler D W Fall(5–1)	Wrestler E L 5R–1	Did not advance			16	9

--Klõps (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)