User talk:Andrwsc/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Andrwsc/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 02:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Torino vs. Turin

The TV announcers are calling it Torino. What do we know that they don't know? Wahkeenah 20:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The "TV announcers" are marketing the games using the Italian name -- incorrectly. They say "Torino, Italy" when it should be "Turin, Italy" (English) or "Torino, Italia" (Italian), take your pick. I saw a map on NBC that showed Rome, Florence, Venice and Torino. Dumb. If they wanted Italian, it should have said Roma, Firenze, Venezia and Torino.

Also note that the Associated Press, BBC, Canadian Press, Reuters, CNN, Sports Illustrated, etc. all use "Turin" in their English language coverage, so it's not like I'm forcing something against all common usage in English language media.

I am trying to update the English Wikipedia pages for correctness and consistency. Note that the root page of 2006 Winter Olympics explains the Torino/Turin issue, and (correctly) uses Turin in the right context. The Italian page at it:XX_Olimpiade_Invernale uses Torino, which is perfectly appropriate. I note that the Italian page uses "Stati Uni", "Svezia", and "Norvegia" (for example) in its medal table, so just as they have (correctly) used Italian place names on an Italian Wikipedia page, we should use English place names on English Wikipedia pages. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for more details

Thank you for posting your question here instead of taking a knee-jerk reaction to revert my changes. I appreciate that! Andrwsc 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

My knees are hurting today from too much knee-jerking already, and I couldn't take any more. :) If anyone else wants to fight with you over that, I'll let you and them handle it. You might be right that they are "marketing" the name, but it does appear on the banner, so it's hard to avoid. Is it Ford that makes or used to make a car called the Torino? If so, Ford should be an official sponsor, as it would be free advertising, don'cha know. Actually, I would be very happy if we English speakers would refer to those cities by their "real" names such as Roma, Venezia, etc. But the expression, "Torino, Italy" is definitely a mixed metaphor. One other oddity I've noticed: no small number of announcers are pronouncing the name as if it were spelled "Turino". Go figure. Wahkeenah 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that many place names have been "unnecessarily Anglicized" in history, but for many places, it is necessary. For example, there are no accented characters (such as "ü") in the English alphabet, so we can't write "München" in English. (I can't tell you why it ended up being called Munich instead of Muenchen, which uses the normal way of converting the German ü to English "ue".) There are also pronunciation differences, such as the English W having the same sound as the German V (and vice versa); this is one reason why "Wien" becomes "Vienna" in English. And I won't even get into places like 北京, which becomes either Peking, Pei-ching, Běijīng, or Beijing, depending on which system you use to "romanize" Chinese characters....

Let alone the question of how "Deutschland" became "Germany" in English. Wahkeenah 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the games logo, well, the 2004 summer games logo included Αθήνα, which becomes like Athína when "romanized", but I never saw any English reference to the city as anything other than Athens.

Note that I have absolutely no issue with the use of "Torino" when referring to the name of the games (e.g. as "Torino 2006"), but I will make the change to "Turin" when referring to the city on an English language Wikipedia page. I would also support any French editor who wants to refer to "Londres" on French Wikipedia pages as host city of the 2012 summer games.

I like your idea of bringing back the Ford Torino.  ;) Andrwsc 23:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If NBC is "marketing" the games as "Torino", they aren't doing a very good job of it, since apparently nobody is watching in the USA. Maybe they just wanted to keep "Turin" shrouded. However, if the games overall are successful, the city could host them again soon. One good Turin deserves another. :) Wahkeenah 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I see there's already a topic about it here, so I won't start a new one, but instead post my opinion here: Who cares what the city is called in English? Keeping with the name of the campaign would make a more sense when referring to the games. Otherwise, if you're so obsessed with the name of the place, you should use the correct names of the sites where the actual events took place: no cross-country skier, curler, biathlete or alpine skier took a medal in Turin, but in Pragelato, Pinerolo, Cesana and Sestriere. --x-Flare-x 22:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

My objection is specifically to the use of "Torino, Italy". The city can be called "Turin, Italy" or it can be called "Torino, Italia", but not the goofy hybrid promoted by NBC and others. Of those two choices, "Turin, Italy" makes the most sense for English language Wikipedia, as per standard naming conventions. If you've seen some of my edits, you'll see that I've left a lot of references to "Torino" alone — where it is used in the right context. I will continue to change "Torino, Italy" however. Andrwsc 23:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If I have understood correctly, in English we say that the Torino Winter olympics were hosted in Turin, Italy. So if you're talking about the olympics, you should call them Torino, but the city is called Turin in English. I've got this view from looking at the International Olympic Committee website (http://www.olympic.org/ ) where these olympics are always referred to as Torino. I think that the IOC name for the olympics is the official one, as it is, well, the International Olympics Committee. --HJV 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please read some of the comments above - it's quite clear. The name of the games is "Torino 2006", not any other variation. Any reference to the games using that name will be untouched. However, the city name remains "Turin" in the English language. Therefore, I will edit any article that says something like "Joe Bloggs won the dogsled racing at the 2006 Winter Olympics in Torino". That's just wrong. If the author refers to the "Torino 2006" games, such as found on several references on the 2006 Winter Olympics page, then that's correct and will be left alone. Andrwsc 00:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

For Gina Kingsbury in this edit you changed "2006 Torino" to "2006 Turin". Now, above you say you wouldn't change "Torino 2006". So, are you saying "Torino 2006" stays the same, but "2006 Torino" must be changed? I understand changing references to the town, but I thought you intended to leave references to the games alone. --Rob 09:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As per the discussion at Template talk:MedalTop, my interpretation was that the middle field in that template was going to be expanded to use the year and location of the games (for example, see the comments by User:Don Sowell). Also, before I started, there were pages using Turin and pages using Torino, and I am a strong proponent of consistency of presentation on Wikipedia, so I wanted to change them all to look the same. Therefore, I used AutoWikiBrowser to find & replace and use a consistent location. Now, in my usage of AWB, I left untouched references to "Torino 2006" when they were used in the right context. Andrwsc 19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

IPTV talk

Hey Andrew, I am guessing that is your name, I have spoken to the Admin at wikipedia and I suggest you read the history before you go about editing content on Wikipedia. I am going to come back and check your page and it would be nice to see a reply from you. This is regarding IPTV BTW. Hope you have a nice day, Ajay

Check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GraemeL#Hey

I presume you are the anonymous editor who keeps adding a link to a personal blog site on the IPTV page. I'm not the only Wikipedian who has seen that site for what it is, and deleted the link from the IPTV page. Please refrain from using Wikipedia for personal benefit.

And for crying out loud, if you want me to reply here, please stop editing this page once a minute - it makes it difficult to add my response. Please think about what you have written, and use the preview button, instead of rapid-fire editing. Andrwsc 18:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your comments so that I can reply to you directly. (Use four tildes).

I encourage you to read Wikipedia:External links. I believe that your personal site fails the standard Wikipedia guidelines in multiple ways:

• it contains unverified original research and as a personal blog, it clearly has point of view. Please also read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
• it does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose
• it appears to be a link that is added to promote a site. The viewer is encouraged to go from the IPTV text to your blog home page on every page
• it has an objectionable amount of advertising from all your sponsors,

and lastly and most importantly,

• it is a website that you own or maintain.

On this last point, the guideline is clear that: If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article. If you are sincere about your desire to improve the IPTV page, I suggest you heed this advice and work on the page directly. Andrwsc 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Case: Systema

You have indicated that you are willing to accept an assignment as a mediator. I have assigned this case to you. If you don't want to take the case on, just say so at the bottom of the request, delegate it to someone else and update the case list accordingly. Before your begin the mediation please read the suggestions for mediators. You can also review earlier mediation cases to get an understanding for possible procedures. --Fasten 12:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

1900 Summer Olympics medal count

Hi Jonel. First, I want to say that I appreciate a lot of the work you have done for the Olympic pages. I have been making lots of recent contributions, including finishing a complete set of "Canada at the xxxx Olympics" pages and also filling in some gaps for various sports pages. Anyway, I see that you reverted my edit to the 1900 page, with respect to the Luxembourgish athlete. I guess the issue is this: what should we take as the official source for medals? The IOC web site shows Michel Théato winning the medal for France, but as you have pointed out, it was discovered later that he was from Luxembourg. I presume the IOC doesn't recognize that yet. I'm a bit concerned that we're trying to override an official source, but if you feel strongly about it, we should at least add a footnote to the 1900 page since the Wikipedia table differs from the IOC table referenced from that page! Andrwsc 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. You're absolutely right that we should have a footnote. I've added it, and a couple references supporting his Luxembourg nationality. I don't particularly think we should take any single source as "official" as to someone's nationality, but rather should look at all sources and attempt to determine what is accurate (whilst noting any discrepancies, as I ought to have done at first but have now rectified ;)). I should probably do the same with 1896. That year has some really screwy things going on with the IOC count--the IOC counts Dionysios Kasdaglis as Greek for his tennis singles medal, but when he is paired with a Greek athlete for the doubles competition, the IOC gives that silver medal to Mixed Team ZZX!! Obviously, things become much simpler once NOCs are introduced. So much nicer. --

Hi Jonel, I think your footnotes on the 1900 page are well written, so thanks for that. I'm still a bit concerned at the precendent set here. We don't want to open the door for the politically charged folks to start reassigning medals. One good example is the case of the Korean athletes who were forced to compete under Japan in the 1936 (I think) games, due to the occupation of Korea by Japan. I am not insensitive to their situation (having to use Japanese names instead of their own names, etc.), but the last thing I want to see is an editor reassigning those medals from JPN to KOR because of what happened. Wikipedia is not the place to rewrite history, but to document it in a NPOV manner. In the case of Michel Théato, my preference would be to still follow the IOC count, but use the footnote to describe the situation with his LUX nationality. That way, Wikipedia is 100% consistent with the IOC records, but still allows for the reporting of new facts. As you undoubtedly have seen, medal counts are an extremely sensitive topic for a lot of people, and I think we (as Olympic Wikipedia editors) have to work very hard to present the facts as neutrally as possible. If you feel strongly about assigning this medal to LUX in our tables, then I won't revert it on you, but I wanted to let you know my motivation here. Thanks, Andrwsc 18:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess the line I would draw is that once NOCs are implemented, it is a fairly simple matter of fact to say that X athlete competed through the auspices of Y NOC. Korean athletes competing for the Japanese committee should have a footnote explaining that, but the count should include them under JPN. At that point (but not in 1900), "JPN", "KOR", "FRA", and "LUX" referred to specific organisations not entirely connected to the political entities by whose names those committees are typically called. This is the same reason that Mia Audina's medals go under different nations in different years. Even though she is Indonesian, she competes (now) for the Netherlands NOC. Trying to change her second medal to counting for INA would be wrong, as Audina specifically competes for NED. Théato, on the other hand, did not compete for FRA. -- Jonel | Speak 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet?

Hi Andrwsc,

You mentioned on User talk:Alexr23 that you suspected him/her of using User:88.152.202.122. User:88.155.7.144 has also made an uncited edit to 2004 Summer Olympics medal count. Thanks, Andjam 22:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I think User:Tt1 is the "original", and in addition to User:Alexr23 and those anon IP users, I think User:Roitr and a couple of other anon IP users are all that same person too. We have had a gruelling edit war on Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, but I have also challenged some of the edits for the 2002 and 2004 medal counts. Thanks for spotting the recent activity. Andrwsc 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

These are in fact the sockpuppet accounts of Roitr (talk · contribs · block log), as established by Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Roitr. By now, all his sockpuppets have been blocked and I'm watching all the articles he vandalized in the past, but in case his obsession spreads to other similar topics, please report his activities to the above page. Take care, --Dmitry 12:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

mediation

Are you still in need of mediation regarding IPTV? Can you let me know which users/IPs have been involved in inserting the ajayshroff.com links? I'll try and make contact. -- Netoholic @ 15:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue is resolved, thanks! An admin put the {{spam}} template in the "External links" section of IPTV, and User:Ajshroff (+ related anon IPs) and all other users have been abiding by that warning since then. Thanks for the followup, Andrwsc 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I took care of closing the request. Feel free to let me know if it pops up again. -- Netoholic @ 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote WP:ADMIN: Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided that they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions.

The admin in question was me and I'm not an Administrator. --Fasten 21:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, thansk for stepping in and putting up the template anyway. It worked in this case!! Andrwsc 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Total Olympics medal count

Thanks. Can you think of any good example to parallel that of the code change from HOL and NED? — Instantnood 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There have been other nations to change names (although "Holland" was more of a nickname for the Netherlands than an official name), like Dahomey to Benin and Upper Volta to Burkino Faso but those changes don't affect the medal count because they didn't win any. The closest parallel for the case of HKG (same National Olympic Committee but different nation status) might be the combination of YUG to refer to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia until 1992 and also to refer to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the 1998 Winter Olympics and 2000 Summer Olympics (and then changing the name and code to Serbia and Monetnegro (SCG) after that). Andrwsc 17:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also considered using the name change from Yugoslavia (FRY, the post-1992 one) to Serbia and Montenegro as an example, but that's more complicated since the pre- and post-1992 Yugoslavia are not differentiated on the list (while Germany under different names is). The UN does not recognise the post-1992 as a successor of the pre-1992 one (SFRY), and the post-1992 was admitted as a new member. Was it the case for the IOC as well? Yugoslavia didn't play in the 1992 Summer Olympics. — Instantnood 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you can tell, there are lots of complications in the IOC list! I think that's why we decided that simply using the IOC code to sum medal totals would be the least controversial or subject to debate. I don't know about whether the pre-1992 YUG NOC was the same as the post-1992 YUG NOC, or whether a new NOC was created. Andrwsc 22:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Luckily we hasn't yet got any NOC adopting a defunct code of an unrelated NOC. — Instantnood 21:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion added to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics

Just wanted to let you know I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics regarding some of your changes to various Olympic pages. Sue Anne 19:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Olympic sport page

yo, I just wanted to discuss with you what's been happening on that page. User 88.155.130.130 is driving me crazy. He keeps insisting about including demo sports where they shouldn't belong and thinking that Vancouver may have Bandy and/or Speed Skiing events. I'm totally with you on this. I have done alot of background checking and I'm positive that 2010 will NOT be having these events. Do you have any idea on how to procede? Banning seems a bit extreme, but there got to be a way to get the RIGHT info on that page and keep it that way. BTW, keep up the good work. Perakhantu 19:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrwsc, I can only welcome your desire to engage in lenghty discussions with User:Roitr; I have lost mine a while ago as he clearly does not listen to arguments, trying to out-smart his opponents with partial truths and reinstate his edits on every ocassion instead. Maybe he's not adult enough to realize the confusion he creates, maybe he could use some sustantially better English - it really doesn't matter... he's effectively banned now and I see little use in wasting my time trying to convice him, but that's me. --Dmitry 09:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

While I think that having a table for the recognized sports is a good idea, I think it would better if it had a page all by itself. (That way, the vandal can abuse that page all he wants) I would like to keep the Olympic Sport page as clean and short as possible. This ok with you? Perakhantu 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe... I actually got the idea to do this a few days ago — before Roitr's edits — because the IOC website also has a section for "recognized" sports. When I saw his new "Candidate sports" section, I cringed at the speculative way in which it was written, but I thought the underlying motivation was actually fairly sound. Certainly, we need a place to describe the history and process of how & why sports were added and deleted, and I think we're getting there. As for Olympic sports itself, I agree that it is getting somewhat large, so perhaps we should use that page to focus on the current program, with an appropriate link to Demonstration sport as the main article for that section, a link to Sports recognized by the IOC (or a better name) as the main article for that section, etc.

With respect to handling Roitr, I am also frustrated at many of his tactics, but to be honest, my opinion has changed a bit lately. He really seems to have put in some effort to reconcile the discrepancies with the list at Demonstration sport, for example. I do know that back-and-forth recert wars are never effective with him, so for things like his addition of sync. skating as a demo in 2002 or speed skiing on the 2010 possibles list, I think the best approach is to just add the {{citationneeded}} template instead of deletion. Thanks for your support! Andrwsc 22:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Putting up 1 page devoted to the current Olympic programme, then having with in that page links to a "Past Olympic sports" page, a "Sports Recognized by the IOC" page, and of course the "Demonstration sport" page would be great. I'll go along with the citation needed route for now, but I'm still peeved at this user's tactics. The formats for these pages are starting to come together. Looks alot better and more organized. Good job.

You sir, (ma'am?) are freaking brilliant!!! Great job on finding out the info on there being NO demonstration sprorts for Atlanta 1996 and Sydney 2000. Now if only we could find the same thing on the 1994 and 2002 winter olympic offical reports. I wish I could have taken the time to find out myself. Oh man, I hope this stop Roitr from putting up bogus information again... or is that just wishful thinking? Once again, good work! ADD: Another good thing you might try is actually put those references that you have on the "edit history" page on the actual page itself. I know it's kind of redundant with the source section already listing the website that hosts the offical reports, but I would just like those up front and center. Gives the not-so-subtle hint to Roitr to stuff it. Perakhantu 06:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

User: Roitr

Yeah, I've been following the revert war which is why I actually spent some time today actually looking for a specific reference. Sue Anne 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that! On the plus side, the article is looking a lot better from all this recent attention.  ;) Andrwsc 00:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

On Talk:Olympic sports#Note to Roitr on your edits, you say I hope you will engage me in constructive discussion on each of these points... I must repeat I'm really impressed by your patience in this dispute, please don't give it up even if you eventually end up getting something like the recent personal attack on User:Nixer (yes I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but I just wanted you to know all the aspects of arguing with Roitr ... you're not the only one to try to reason with him, though I really hope you'll have better luck than the others). --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 21:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How to

I've found the quickest way to get his sockpuppets banned - just report him for obvious vandalism at WP:AIV! It's slightly off rules (you are typically required to issue several warnings), but otherwise the powers that be have shown little interest in tracking activity reports at User:Roitr/sockpuppetry.

Provided that you take your time and provide some evidence from edit histories (like I did in [1] [2] [3] [4]), admins will gladly block him with no furhter warning even if there were no prior warnings. They are usually reluctant to bother tagging him with {{indefblock}}, so that is left upon the reporting person. --Dmitry _{(talk •contibs )} 18:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

New IOC flag template

I would like to express my concerns over the new IOC template you have created for athletes. Using Biathlon at the Winter Olympics as an example I have noticed that you have excluded the full names of the countries when listing the athletes. I am sure that you have your reasons, such as, including the official code the IOC uses when naming athletes as well as shortening the space used within the boxes. I would like to see that the full names of the countries be restored. For the everyday reader, more likely than not they won't know what each particular code refers to. This topic has been discussed before on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Olympics discussion page. While it may be very convenient from an editing point of view, to the casual reader, seeing all those codes can be confusing. I propose changing it so that the full name (to an extent.. NOT to spell out the ENTIRE name such as Islamic Republic of Iran, etc.) appears in underscript in small letters. That way just a bit more room will be used in the boxes, but it will still have a low profile. Perakhantu 05:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the previous version of that page, it didn't use full country names either. There's nothing to "restore". It also used the 3 letter IOC code in parenthesis after the athlete's name -- but with a wikilink to the country article. That's why I used it as my "guinea pig" for the new {{flagIOCathlete}} template. I think links from GER to Germany in that context are useless instead of linking to Germany at the 2006 Winter Olympics (for example).

In fact, it is far more common to find that layout on Olympic pages (i.e. flag + athlete name + IOC code) than any other layout, and my motivation is to use a template so that wikilinks, flags, etc. are all consistently formatted. As for the "everyday reader", there are multiple clues to help identify the country. The full country name is displayed in a hover box when you move over the flag, and of course, the IOC code links to the "Country at the xxx Olympics" article (and you get that name in the hover box when you mouse over that too).

I can appreciate that a handful of pages use the full country name, so I do not intend to change that formatting, but I will make edits on pages that use the same format as the new template. The beauty, of course, is that if we decide that the full country name is better, then a single edit to the template code instantly changes ALL pages that use the template, and they are all instantly consistent....

As for the length of names, I have made some changes to the appropriate templates that use so that none of the country names are too long (e.g. {{flagIOC|IRI}} generates just  Iran now.)

Thanks for the comments! Andrwsc 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Olympic medalists

I would also like to thank you on the work you've developped with the templates, which I believe are the best suited for the Olympics. Zé da Silva 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Sport templates

hello again. On some of the winter olympic pages, I have noticed a sport template at the bottom of the page that contains the sports that were competed at those games. Here are a couple of examples: 1928 Winter Olympics and 1932 Winter Olympics. Since the sports have already been listed near the top of the pages under "Medals awarded", do you think this is a bit redundant? I'm not saying you, yourself, put those templates in, but since you seem to be doing a great job at creating and using templates on various pages, I thought I would talk to you about the matter. What do you think? Perakhantu 20:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't create those templates (but I have done some cleanup work on them where necessary). I guess my opinion is that navigation boxes can be quite helpful, but they should enhance the article, but not overwhelm it. For example, on all of the "Sport at the xxx Olympics" pages, there tend to be a pair of nav. boxes at the bottom - one for the sport, and one for the events of the Games. This makes great sense. I also like the country-specific nav. boxes at the end of the "Country at the xxx Olympics" pages. However, I think the "NOC at the xxx Olympics" boxes are too excessive (esp. for recent Games). To answer your specific question, I think that: 1) the "Medals awarded" section would be better named "Events" or similar, and include more than just a simple list. It should also have some commentary, perhaps on differences from the previous Games, etc. 2) the Events nav. box at the bottom of the page is mostly intended for each "Sport at the xxx Olympics" page, and I think the main parent page for each Games looks better without it (esp. since those pages have the monster Olympics nav. box instead), so I would support you removing them from the handful of Games pages that have them, citing consistency etc. If you need a good example, look at 1896 Summer Olympics, which is a featured article. I really like the layout of that, esp. with the commentary on each sport with a link to the per-sport article. Andrwsc 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across this while looking at my watchlist. I don't have any opinions on the original question, but I do have a fairly strong opinion on the NOC at the xxxx Olympics templates on the various country pages. I know that for some of the recent Games pages they seem a bit overwhelming, but I believe that's due to lack of other content vs. the boxes themselves. Personally, I find them very useful as I'm often navigating between the various countries when working on a block of Olympic pages. Sue Anne 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I certainly can't disagree with editors using them to jump from country to country (as I have done that too!), but I question whether that is a natural way for a reader to browse Wikipedia. I'm just not "sold" on them, so I'm certainly not going to remove them or anything. In fact, I've added a couple of missing ones and done some double-checks on existing ones, so the fact that it's on my personal list of things to care about should tell you that I'm not totally against them... Andrwsc 22:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Just a couple of comments: 1. I'm not too sure about having such a big template for listing all the participating countries on each country page. Even for pages that are well developed such as United States at the 2004 Summer Olympics, the box at the bottom of the page is huge and just seems to unwieldy to have.

2. I looked at the Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics, and I noticed a template at the top of the page that contains all the swimming events. Isn't that redundant? The reader can just click on the seperate events that are listed with the medal winners. 136.168.108.12 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My replies: 1. I think I agree with you; I'm not a huge fan of those "Nations in the xxx Olympics" templates. I didn't originally create them. However, assuming they do remain, then I will do my best to ensure that they are accurate. I've recently been creating some "Country at the xxx Olympics" stubs to get rid of redlinks on the "home page" for those Games, and I'm putting those navigation boxes at the bottom to ensure consistency. I'd be perfectly happy without those nav boxes, but that means that we have to get rid of all of them. It's got to be all or nothing, and right now I'm assuming they should all be there.

2. I'm not a fan of those event nav boxes either. What I'm working towards is that each "Sport at the xxx Olympics" page has a "Medal summary" table, with links to per-event articles. Therefore, it becomes the "root" page for navigation. I think the argument for those nav boxes is that you could easily go from 100 free to 200 free (for example), without having to move back to the "root" and then clicking on the next event. For example, look at how I laid out Swimming at the 1964 Summer Olympics or Athletics at the 1928 Summer Olympics for two examples.

In both cases, I think you ought to start the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics where you'll get a broader audience than just me!

Thanks for the feedback, Andrwsc 20:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Olympic medalists in sailing

I was at a loss over what to do with this page. I can see pros and cons of it being a full article instead of a disambiguation page, so I'm pleased you have picked up the ball.

My view having found the page a while ago was that there were already individual pages for some of the yachting events, so this page per se was redundant except as a disambiguation page, with the multiple year template acting as he disambiguation.

I feel the article itself, if it is to be a full article, should have the name of the nation and each crew member of each boat in the G/S/B columns.

Fiddle Faddle 09:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly the intent. There are a complete set of articles like that (see Lists of Olympic medalists, or Category:Olympic medalists by sport) that parallel the set of pages for each sport (i.e. Sailing at the Summer Olympics in this case - see Olympic sports for links to full list). When complete, we'll end up with a page that summarizes the Olympic history of the sport, with the evolution of the program, combined medal table, etc. and the second page with the list of medal winners by event. Here's some examples of these pages that are pretty much complete: Speed skating at the Winter Olympics and List of Olympic medalists in speed skating, or Boxing at the Summer Olympics and List of Olympic medalists in boxing.. It would be too much to put that all into one page, so they complement each other nicely and can each be categorized appropriately. Yes, the single "Olympic medalists in sport" pages duplicate the information found on all of the specific "Sport at the year Olympics" pages, but I think there is tremendous value in having a list of all winners for a specific event put together. You can see how some nations dominate certain events over time, repeat medal winning athletes, etc. Thanks for the comments! Andrwsc 09:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A service, if you would

At present I have a wikichallenge which I have aired at The Village Pump. In order to solve the challenge I am hoping to attract level headed editors to reach a consensus on the matter (hence the Village Pump posting, but it seems to be bearing no fruit yet). I won't describe the issue in any detail save to say that it is regarding use of categories and lists, because I do not want to influence your thinking. It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with an eventual consensus. What matters is that wikipedia benefits. I'd be very happy of you chose to attract other editors to the challenge too. Fiddle Faddle 10:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi thankyou very much for completing the 1932 Olympic athletics article. I completed the mens results but sorry I didn't have time to change the womens and complete the medal table. Thankyou for helping me out. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 10:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sport v. Discipline

Yes, I do see your points and I totally agree with most of what you said. I think we should just let it flow the way it's going right now, and maybe in a year or so as the Olympics get nearer make a decision on the route to go. But I think keeping the years the same is quite important, as consistancy is key. → JARED ^(t)  13:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletics at the Olympics

Please can you sort ou Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics and Athletics at the 1948 Summer Olympics. They have been created but crucial information is missing I am amazed this doesn't exist already. 1956 data also missing. Priority. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for filling the page. I was amazed they didn't already exist!! I mean Jesse Owens at the Games!! In my mind 1936 is one of the MAJOR years in Athletics. There is now only one page not completed. Athletics at the 1956 Summer Olympics. Thankyou. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 08:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You are doing great work on olympics. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that! I just finished 1956. Andrwsc 22:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Olympics page

Hi. I am trying to disambiguate the Georgia link to point directly to the Georgia (country) page. Thanks. Khatru2 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Khatru2 23:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

USSR Olympics

It's my understanding that sources should be cited in each applicable article. Recently, I have seen certain frequently used sources like census reports cited with a link to the citation instead of repeating the citation in every location. I imagine that format is only really suitable when there are hundreds of references and when the source will change due to updates (as would be the case with a census). Erechtheus 16:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

medal tables

whoa whoa. Is it such a good idea to put the medal tables down the page that far? I think for most readers, one of the first things they would like to see is the medla tables, and see how their country did from Olympiad to Olympiad. If anything, I would like to see the medal tables near the top, maybe after the introduction and before the highlights. Do you think this would make another discussion on the Olympic talk page? Perakhantu 04:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Perakhantu. I have been moving the medal table section after the participating nations section for a couple of reasons. First, it matches the structure of the 1896 Summer Olympics article, which is the lone featured article in that series. I think that article serves as a good model for all the main Olympics articles. For example, the "Sport by sport overview" is really well done (with links to each sport page as a main article) rather than the typical treatment on most of the other pages, which is just a bulleted list of links. Second, I think that sequence of sections (sports, followed by list of nations, followed by medal table) seems to be the most "natural way" of telling the "story" of each Games. Putting the medal table first seems to me to be like reading the last chapter of a novel first.

Anyway, I think the medal tables have pretty high prominence already, since you can directly get there from any of the Games pages or from the main Olympics navigation box, and once there, you have an easy navigation to see the Games by Games tables. Therefore, the "top ten" list on the Games home pages is going to be less useful for that purpose. Certainly, unless the reader is looking for a nation that is regularly in the top ten, he/she will click to the full table anyway and navigate from there.

Lastly, one of the things I strongly believe needs to be on the "home" country at the Olympics page (e.g. Canada at the Summer Olympics) is a table showing the medal counts from every Games. That would certainly be the easiest way of seeing "how their country did from Olympiad to Olympiad". Unfortunately, those set of pages are sorely lacking right now. Andrwsc 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, while there are a few things I agree with you on, I really disagree with you on other points. As far as the 1896 Summer Olympics page goes, while it is a featured article, I don't feel it should be the one, true model that all other pages should adopt. Like any other page, even featured articles can be modified, improved upon, and even changed. Which brings me to my second point. While at first glance, the idea of having a brief overview of each sport sounds like a good idea, do you relaize how incredibly unwieldy it would be for the recent olympics? By having an overview for each sport with 28 SPORTS IN 2004, it would create a gigantic page with much tedious scrolling. I like having the sports listed the way they are, but maybe with a bit more prominance (bigger text for example).. or something to draw attention to those sport links.

I still believe that the medal table should be near the top of the page, maybe even incorperated into the Olympics info-box. While it is true that it only provides the top 10 countries in medals awarded, I believe the reader would like to have immediate access to a bit of information that pretty much sums up each edition of the olympics without having to scroll down.

Now as for the overall layout of the page, how would you square what goes on at the 1896 page to the 2004 page? I'm not being sarcastic, but would really like to know how you plan to go about this. The 2004 Summer Olympics page contains quite a bit of information but has sections that.. well.. lets face it.. won't EVER be on the 1896 page. Examples would be bidding and construction.

The one point where I am in absolute agreement, is the need for each country tp have a page devoted to their ENTIRE Summer Olympic history and then another page for their history in the Winter Olympics as well. These pages are/will be invaluable.Perakhantu 06:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You raise some good points. Certainly, the amount of detail in the 1896 "Sport by sport overview" cannot be the model for

all current Games, but I do think more than a list of links is necessary. Even a sentence or two would be sufficient. For example, something like this:

---

Diving

•  China dominated the competition, winning six gold medals and nine medals overall in eight events

Rowing

•  Elisabeta Lipa (ROM) won her fifth gold medal (as part of the women's eights team) and eighth medal in six Olympic Games since 1984
•  Matthew Pinsent (GBR) won a gold medal for the fourth straight Games

Football

•  Argentina won the men's tournament
•  United States won the women's tournament

Swimming

•  Michael Phelps (USA) was the star of the swimming competition, winning six gold medals and eight medals overall
•  Kirsty Coventry (ZIM) won a gold, silver and bronze medal each – three of the four medals that Zimbabwe has won in all-time Olympic competition

---

I think it would be extremely useful to have at least this level of detail for all sports, for all Games.

As for the location of the medal table, I'm not extremely insistent about the location. Putting it in the infobox is an interesting idea. (The implementation might be difficult - passing a table as a template parameter is not easy.) Like I said, I had felt that the order of sections as 1. sports, 2. participating nations, 3. medal table was the most logical, but I won't fight it.

Lastly, I'd like to discuss the "Nation at the Olympics" pages. Currently, the plan seems to be to have two summary pages for most nations, one each for summer & winter Games. I had been planning to bring up a proposal on the WikiProject page to only have a single summary page. Some of the material that ought to be included (such as discussion about the NOC for each nation) would otherwise be duplicated if there were two high-level pages. For "big" nation histories (e.g. USA), this will undoubtedly have to be split into multiple sub-articles, and the Summer/Winter split is a start. (I would think that a properly written article on the USA might need even more than that, such as a sport-by-sport breakdown. I can imagine that "United States at the Olympics - Athletics" might be a fairly complete article by itself.)

My motivation for this "merger" is that it is far simpler for most nations to have a single "home page" for their Olympic history, and it aligns well with the new infobox style I'm adopting for the specific "Nation at the year Olympics" pages, where I include the full set of Olympic appearances. I'd appreciate your comments on this idea, as the current state of the summary pages is quite woeful, and I'd like to have support for a common format before I tackle them. Andrwsc 17:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IF you have extremely brief summary of each sport, that wouldn't be too bad I suppose. I just don't want to make the recent olympic pages larger than they already are. I mean, 2004 is quite large, and I can only imagine what the 2008 page would be.

As for the medal tables/infobox idea, I have also noticed that boxes change is size (horizontal) from olympiad to olympiad. The pictures seem to vary is size thus causing the boxes to fluctuate. I myself am NOT that competent in wikipedia formatting, but do you know of a way to keep the images the same size? I myself would like to see how a medal table would look when combined with the info box. I know you are busy, so this isn't urgent at all.

With the Nation pages, I agree that for many countries, having one page (combining both summer and winter olympic histories) would be sufficent. But here is the question: Where do you draw the line when to have the pages split into 2 (summer/winter) and then split again into sport-by-sport pages? Just bringing up an issue that one should be mindful of.

I personally think that the template or infobox or whatever it is that you created for each country at XXXX Olympics is really good. Large flag, with IOC designation and then the years participated in. Very nice.

Having thought about all this, it really makes me wonder how complete all these olympic pages are. I mean.. I think we have maybe 10% done.. if that? The way this is all unfolding, there are scads and scads of information that still needs to be added to all these pages. What a daunting task.

I'll take a look at {{Infobox Olympic games}} and see what I can do.

As for the "Nation at the Olympics" pages, I think the rule of thumb ought to be to split when you start to see the "page is too big" message! Seriously, I don't think we need a "one size fits all" rule for every page. Even as it stands now, some of the individual Games pages are way too big and ought to be split (United States at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Canada at the 2006 Winter Olympics, etc.)

Thanks for the feedback on the new nation infoboxes. Considering I've put that onto a couple of hundred pages so far, I'm surprised that nobody has commented on it. Things sure seem to be quiet in the Olympic WikiProject these days.

As for the scope of the whole project, I agree there is a HUGE amount of work to be done, if we want to get everything brought up to the same level. My opinion is that if we can get every "Sport at the year Olympics" page to show the complete list of medal winners (in the same format) and ditto for the "Nation at the year Olympics" pages, then that's a fantastic milestone. Adding the complete results for every athlete in every event is an awesome goal, but comes second. One of my goals is to get the complete 2004 results cleaned up so that they become the template for 2008. Every two years we seem to attract a large group of editors who focus on the Games for a couple of weeks, then move on to something else. It would be great if the 2004 pages were a gold standard they could start with. Take a look at how I've re-formatted the Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics page into specific event pages to see what I mean. I've also re-worked Sailing at the 2004 Summer Olympics and Triathlon at the 2004 Summer Olympics.

Andrwsc 16:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Olympics

Hi there; you have Germany 1936 Olympics article in twice. Was that intentional? i have done nothing except point it out to you here.--Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. As I said, I have not tagged, flagged or changed them in any way. You have undertaken a truly mammoth task here, have you not?--Anthony.bradbury 22:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an understatement!!  :) Andrwsc 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Olympics Chad

I've noted you made some small changes to Chad at the 1984 Summer Olympics, speaking of a 1980 boycott. I feel this piece is information is probably wrong; Chad did not participate not because of a boycott, but because in 1979 central authority literaly disintegrated, all state institutions ceasing to exist, and in 1980 things were even worse, with the capital divided among rival militias.--Aldux 17:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I was just going from the list of countries at American-led boycott of the 1980 Summer Olympics, which includes Chad. However, that section has the {{unreferenced}} tag, so it may not be gospel. Andrwsc 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Field hockey at the Summer Olympics

Andrwsc, your reason looks poor, very poor indeed, the style completely show the standard and good alignment, also the tidyness that everyone use and agree. You are the first to object this style. Whitespace, i don't think so, people still can read under that font size, it make sense not too long to review the long-long history. I don't know whether you narrow minded or is completely your feel about this "terrible" formatting. Anyway, i'm just revert and the other, again, your reason looks poor and no sense i have to admit your formatting also looks good. Sorry. --Aleenf1 05:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, if you consider until the screen pixel, then we no need to talk, again, the page you raise is telling that is about allow 90% font size. And 1280 X 1024 pixels is not use by much person, it make visibility very poor. Again, i'm revert. Rediculous question --Aleenf1 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh ya? Sounds like i am the evil person when wide use format can use by other but not me, and what keep rediculous to me, but not you, you do this thing is not consider rediculous. When other sound good, you sound really terrible, what kind of your mind. How much big the laptop screen until a person can adjust to a small visibility. Civil? Much like you not civil. Keep away from me. I defend myself and the wide use style. Sorry. --Aleenf1 06:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

What you think so, even consider vandal, i defend what i'm do, and it refer to most page of wiki even i'm been block. --Aleenf1 06:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is what i'm refer FIFA World Cup, FIFA U-20 World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, FIBA World Championship, so you look at the navigation template in bottom. I'm absolutely refer to this. So what you claim resolution issue is really not in my mind, other also if he/she can view. AND don't try to make same thing, i'm absolutely unhappy, and i'm promise you consider me vandal, i do also. I'm not native english speaker --Aleenf1 07:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You know i'm like what style after numeral edit. I'm already told early, in the first reply. And i'm ask other, it say resolution is not the problem, i don't know what you think, really. And the conbination is good for me, other feel so if they use this style. Just only you i think. --Aleenf1 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hang on what you do, i'm going to make poll, and revert to early version, if your style is most support one, i'm give up. Don't try to advice someone to support your style, this is not right. --Aleenf1 07:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mind what reason you are, i'm going to make pool. Only this can decide the most person like, agree? Just hang on for pool --Aleenf1 07:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, spelling mistake, poll in talk page, agree? --Aleenf1 07:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Which page you want, i'm likely to go for article page, voice it before i make it. --Aleenf1 07:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Poll will decide everything, no need to told me stubborn. I'm going to me poll. --Aleenf1 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not threat, but this already raised to admin. It say is not a case. I'm do nothing wrong, but you again, again and again tal the resolution issue. --Aleenf1 16:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I no need to answer you, the table looks good and dunno why you look so far about 4:3 and 16:10

None the less, not you point all is right. Again, i am not looking my style but you raised what it not be a case. Thats all--Aleenf1 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

---

This is the last time i'm talk to you, no future discussion:

• The editing is nice, no formatting issues are carry on as your mention, and it is not reduce anything as mention in guideline. I'm not agree to your request, this is my final decision.
• I'm agree i have personal attack to you, very sorry and i'm regret about it. You ask for civil, but you doesn't sometime.
• Your behaviour just discouraged other wikipedians to editing article, as you deny Wikipedia policy of welcome everyone, also as a member of WikiProject Olympics Games. Reverse what you do, you didn't show respect to other wikipedians by keeping your idea, a commons think that had agree(in case you say is improvement) and didn't thanks to the wikipedians who willing to expand article.
• Please see WP:EP, perfection is not required, that mean you no need to care about visibility, instead of care about vandalism.
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith, i'm not make any mistake, article looks really good enough. Indeed you make it like a big case. Not really.
• Also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, when improvement make, no need to follow all rules, as i did.

I'm will run the job in field hockey until all works done, also cleanup. After that, i'm never interfere again. That not mean i'm give up, i'm will watch it as i say request reject and no further reply to your message again. Thats all. If you offense, i will ask admin to ensure that is right --Aleenf1 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops

[5] - careful! I'm guessing you don't actually think that removing "Oh babbyyyyyyy" from a page is vandalism ;). -- Jonel | Speak 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ireland at the 1936 Summer Olympics

:(Cross posting from my usertalk) Did Ireland really compete in 1936 Berlin? Do you have a source that shows they did, because the official report (here, page 596) shows they did not. Andrwsc 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thought I did but can't find it. Only reference is the one about the Athletics team being barred. Must've aaumed the rest of the team was OK. Damn it... Dodge 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. If you agree then, I'll put the article up for deletion. Thanks. Andrwsc 05:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd actually keep it but edit it. As its the only games Ireland missed since the foundation of the state, people may wish to find out why and the reference provided explains that. I'd leave it out of the excellent templates you have created but leave it in the Ireland at the Olympics category. Dodge 10:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

{{Dynamic navigation box}}

Hi, the issues you described might be due to caching. Could you re-revert the template and check if clearing your browser cache resolves the issues? Thanks, —Ruud 21:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... what browser are you using, could you post a screenshot, does the same problem occur at {{Navigation}}, are any errors reported on the javascript console? —Ruud 21:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I modified the script. Could you test it again? Cheers, —Ruud 22:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Country at Olympics

Hi, Andrwsc! I came to notice you are the author of the fantastic infobox template - Infobox Country at the Olympics - and that you are undergoing a major task by creating copies of such infobox for every country which has played at the Olympics! Before knowing this, I - also a lover of the Olympic Games and creator of some olympic-related articles and templates (see list here) - intended to create one for my country, Portugal, but, if you are committed on doing that, i'll leave it to you then. Good work! If you need any help, leave a message ;) - Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Most wanted articles

Hi, you probably already new, but the article you recently created, Fiji at the 1996 Summer Olympics, is listed on Wikipedia:Most wanted articles. I thought you might want to know. regards, KazakhPol 06:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei

Hi there, I noticed that you have been reverting a number of User:Corinthians's changes to sports-related articles. I've been doing the same thing. It looks like the only edits that user has done have been to replace "Chinese Taipei" with "ROC". I've posted a message on the talk page to ask, politely I think, that this stop. If it continues, I think we'll need to go to some sort of dispute resolution, as I think these are unconstructive and disruptive edits. I can let you know how it goes, if you'd like. Eron 13:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

re: {{Dynamic navigation box}}

The old behavior was to collapse of more than one (NavFrame/dynamic) navigation box was present, and the current is to collapse if more than two (.navbox) navigation boxes are present. I think two navigation boxes don't take up enough space to warrant collapsing them. The number of boxes that need to be present before they are autocollapsed can easily be in-/decreased if people wish this, though. Regards—Ruud 20:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I already though of that: an navigation box will always be collapsed if it has the .collapsed class. I'll add an extra parameter to {{Dynamic navigation box}} et al. Regarding the font size: I viewed this page on IE6 and the font size is slightly (very slight) smaller than the other text. A font size of 90% just doesn't seem to make such an impact on IE6 (this is true for other interface elements with a font size of 90% as well). It may well be possible that if you have set your default font size to anything below normal/medium there isn't any difference. —Ruud 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. —Ruud 21:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Olympic stubs

Hi is it possible that you could add all of the olympians who competed for each country ineach article. E.g in 1972 who actually competed for the Bahamas at the Olympics? this is far more useful. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 22:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but a stub is better than a redlink. My current project is to make sure all of the "Nation at the year Olympics" articles are created (at least to stub level) and all have the new infobox to show the flag, medal count, and list of all appearances. This project involves me editing about 3000 articles. That's a big enough job as it is; to actually COMPLETE each page by going through all the Olympic reports and pulling out all the athlete information is an absolutely ENORMOUS task. Think about it - there are thousands of athletes for each Games! We're just scratching the surface with the Olympics Wikiproject; my current work is to get the framework in place in a consistent, clear format. By putting the references link on every stub, I am hoping that some other editors will help fill in the details. Andrwsc 22:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1896 Olympic mixed teams

Hey there, saw your edit to the Mixed team at the 1896 Summer Olympics to remove results saying that it is not "appropriate to repeat results as though "mixed team" actually competed together as that." ([6]). However, those results aren't on the Greece at the 1896 Summer Olympics, Australia at the 1896 Summer Olympics, Great Britain at the 1896 Summer Olympics, or Germany at the 1896 Summer Olympics pages and so now aren't on any of the national results pages; that is, they weren't repeated before. If you think they should be on the individual nation's pages, please do put them there. -- Jonel | Speak 03:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok, will do. I view the whole "mixed team" idea as the IOC's solution to the "accounting problem" of how to handle medal counts. Therefore, I think those pages should focus on the medal tallies only, and leave the results of the athletes to the event pages and the "real" nation pages. I'll restore that content in the appropriate places. Andrwsc 18:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It'd be so much easier for us if they just hadn't allowed mixed teams to begin with. Why did they have to go making things difficult for poor old Wikipedia? ;). -- Jonel | Speak 01:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can think of another half dozen things I wish they'd done differently!! It makes it more interesting for us...  ;) Andrwsc 01:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: TfD

You have done nothing wrong. I have listed them in the appropriate section to be orphaned and deleted, but since no other administrator seems to be interested in assisting, and I have closed discussions for no more than 2 weeks straight (and am no longer doing so because I am tired of being up the slack for them), I am afraid it is going to be awhile before they are finally deleted. // Pilotguy (Cleared to land) 22:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Great Britain at the Olympics, redux

Many apologies for the change. From the previous discussion, I only vaguely remembered that a resolution had been reached. However, seeing that the last edit (by JP06035) was patently out of line with my memory of the discussion, I went with my vague recollection of what it was. D'oh. Rest assured that I now recognise the solution, and, furthermore, that I don't condone the multiple edits of SndrAndrss (although I do think that s/he has a point). Bastin 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan flag

I wasn't the one who made the orginal edit, but having a boarder around the "Japan flag" icon is a good idea. All you see is a red dot. Yu think you could change the template accordingly? (in reference to your recent 2006 Winter Olympics edit)

I'm not sure what that editor's intentions were. The subtlety of a 7:10 vs. 7:10.5 aspect ratio is completely lost in a 22x20px icon. But then again, we make sure the number of stars is correct on the US flags and you can't see any of them on the icons either. Andrwsc 06:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

so.. umm.. I'm guessing you are going to put a border in? Perakhantu 06:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure what to do. I don't want to just revert the other editor's changes without some talk first. Andrwsc 07:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think the border definitely makes the flag look better and should probably be added to the template. Other flags with a predominantly white field (e.g. Chinese Taipei, Cyprus) have similar borders, so there is precedent. Aesthetically, the border used on the Chinese Taipei flag is a bit more subtle and I think would look better on the Japan flag (and on Cyprus, for that matter). Of course, I'm next to useless at editing graphics files, so I'm not going to be able to do anything about it myself. :) Eron 13:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Olympics

		The Olympics Barnstar
		For all your work in improving Olympic coverage on Wikipedia.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SVG pictograms

Ok, i thought i could convert the PNG pictograms to SVG but i'd eventually gave up, since it's quite a hard time doing this while the opposite is much easier. You said you could do that, if needed. What do i need to do? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. And no, i didn't forget softball, i just started with the Barcelona'92 sports list which still didn't have it as an Olympic one. In this way, you can also see that there isn't triathlon yet, too. But i'm already doing more pictograms for the rest. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I've used Inkscape to convert the PNG files to SVG - and it did lower the file size - but when i uploaded to Commons the image didn't appear at all. It also didn't show an Inkscape special bar that appeared below other visible working SVG images. I believed that you can convert PNG to SVG, but you CAN'T transform a raster format (PNG) into a vectorial graphic (vectors can't appear from thin air). This can explain why i can't visualize the images on Wikipedia. For them to be SVG i'd have to create them again on Inkscape (oh patience!). Anyway, as of now i have all Summer sports pictograms (even lacrosse, roquet, tug-of-war...) with their new names (Olympic pictogram XXXX) but i'm gonna upload them under PNG format and wait until i have patience to redo them on SVG or someone does it for me. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, no worries! Sorry to put you through that hassle. The nuances between SVG and PNG are unknown to me - all I know is that SVG is preferred on Wikipedia, so that's why I mentioned it. Good work! Andrwsc 17:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI on Nordic skiing information

Just to let you know on the Winter Olympic information for cross country skiing, nordic combined, and ski jumping. That information was completed back in early August, including all of the medalists having articles. You can strike them off of your to-do list. Chris 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

FlagIOC usage

Hi Jonel, welcome back. I noticed in your new pages that you put extra spacing around the NOC name when you use the flagIOCxxx templates. Is that intentional? The effect is to render the IOC code with spacing between it and the parenthesis, plus put an extra space (in addition to the nbsp from the template) between the name and the flag For example:

{{flagIOCmedalist | Joe Schmo | USA | 1964 Summer}} renders as

Joe Schmo
 United States

and

{{flagIOCmedalist|Joe Schmo|USA|1964 Summer}} renders as

Joe Schmo
 United States

Andrwsc 00:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The condensed form is a pain to work with in the edit window, is all. Hadn't realized it had that effect on output; I'll not use the extraneous spaces from here on out. -- Jonel | Speak 03:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Canoeing at the 1964 Summer Olympics - Men's C-1 1000 metres

Hi again. Before you create many more pages in 1964 canoeing, might I request that you take a look at what I did for the 2004 pages? (for example: Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's C-1 1000 metres). To be honest, I have trouble with your event page format. I find the colors very distracting, especially since they span the whole line and often the whole table. WP:WAI suggests using color sparingly. Also, the tables for multiple heats don't line up together. On the 2004 page, I use a table to get alignment across multiple races, but I don't display the table lines. The result is quite clean, in my opinion (but then again, I could be accused of "not invented here syndrome"). I'm just suggesting you consider that format. Thanks, Andrwsc 00:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I've started to care less and less about format--coming to the realization that what I like in a results display doesn't seem to match very well what most other people like. Also, the style seems to undergo a massive alteration at least every two years... only 625 or so more days to go before the next big crush of new editors with their own tastes. I'll stick to data, that tends to last longer (even accounting for things like this diff). Feel free to make any changes, I'll try to catch on and keep new pages in whatever the most modern style is. -- Jonel | Speak 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

User:JP06035/Test

Here's a working example of the template you made on your page. It is United States at the 2004 Summer Olympics using an altered version of your template. Instead of having to type in the </div></div> yourself at the end, I just added it to the beginning of the template. There is hardly a time that this would cause a problem, except for the odd chance that someone has an opened <div> tag at the beginning of the page, which shouldn't be there in the first place. So I think this'll work.

Also, I used __NOEDITSECTION__ in the template, but that makes so that the whole page has no edit sections. Could you think of a way to reincorporate these links back in without making them overlap the [show] links? So, check it out! → JARED ^(t)  16:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Great job, Jared! That test sure seemed perfect to me. But yeah, all this work to simplify the results viewing would be worth zero if one cannot edit it with the same ease. Congrats for both of you! Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I might have to deal with the javascript classes to figure out the solution, but what I'd like to see is the "[edit]" button over on the right, as usual, but have the "[show]/[hide]" right after the heading name, just like the way the TOC box is usually rendered. I think it is essential to have section editing enabled here before we go "live" with the new templates. Andrwsc 19:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If i am allowed to make suggestions, i'd suggest - if possible! - to incorporate the show/hide function in the header title. It would be much easier to "open" the results, clicking directly on the sport name than trying to guess which "[show]" belongs to which sport (really, one almost has to draw a line to figure it out). In this way, the edit link could occupy the rightmost place. But i'm not the advanced programmer here... :P Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can do that. The closest thing I've got now is at User:Andrwsc/Test, where the edit and show are on subsequent lines. That produces some extra whitespace in the article, which doesn't look great, but at least you get both edit and hide/show buttons to appear without interfering. I do believe the horizontal line helps, which is one reason why I put the section heading at level 2 instead of 3. To be honest, I'm not sure that the "Results by event" heading adds a lot of value. I think those articles ought to have "Medals", the list of sports, and "References" all at the same level. The next section level could be for men/women, by sport discipline, etc. Andrwsc 19:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got something that might be workable. (User:Andrwsc/Test) I had to split the template into two parts, one for the pictogram rendering and another for the section wrapper. (We'd probably want to wrap the div/div stuff into a "section end" template too.) That puts the edit button and the hide/show button on different lines. At first glance, not using a single template might look inelegant, but there are some benefits. First, on pages where a nation only has a handful of athletes, we can still use the pictogram header but it would be overkill to use the hide/show sections. Second, it provides an opportunity for some narrative text to appear outside of the hidden results section. This might be good for a casual reader scanning the article without having to hit show/hide on each section. What do you think? Andrwsc 20:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I reckon you have come up with a good solution, Andrwsc ;) Like this, we have an editable icon-bearing header with some introductory text (which works nice) and keep the section wrapping for space-management! One thing though: heading 3 sections linking won't work in content box, unless the section is "shown". Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Clicking on a section 3 header in the TOC box at least scrolls to the section 2 header above it, so maybe it's not such a bad problem. I'm going to tinker with this a bit more, but maybe try it out on some real articles next week. Andrwsc 21:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Asiad

hi, andrwsc. i raised this question at the wikiproject olympics: "can someone help me make a template for the Asian Games? like the one used in the satellite pages of the Olympics. Like this one: Template:Infobox Olympics Philippines thanks a lot!" and they told me to ask you. can you help on this. i already created one as a test Template:Infobox Asiad Philippines but i don't know how i can get to the one used in the satelite pages like in this one: Philippines at the 2004 Summer Olympics. you can reply on my talk page. thanks a lot! --RebSkii 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I was going to try to start making the template here for you, but I wasn't sure of the logistics of the Asian games. Are they like the Olympics, with a summer and winter season, or is it totally different, and would you want those other "subsections" included on the template? I think that would be better left to someone who follows the games. → JARED ^(t)  20:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Jared. They have Summer and Winter Games, like the Olympics. It's basically their continental version. You can see more info in Asian Games, as well as the host cities to change in the template. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics Andrwsc 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Congratiulations

I just saw you're having a baby today or tomorrow and I may be early as the baby probably isn't born yet, but otherwise I'll forget. So, I'd like to wish you and your family all the best, and I would say take the time you need together before returning on here. Cheers, SportsAddicted | discuss 22:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Baby, eh? No wonder you're so stressed! Glad to see you came back to the discussion, and back to the 'pedia. Go take your break, we'll be here when you get back. ;) -- nae'blis 23:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ditto! Good luck, enjoy this unique moment (even if it's not the first) and cherish your new "Christmas gift" :D All the best! Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Congrats! Now get outta here and enjoy the experience! Take all the time you need and some...but don't forget about us! Best wishes! → JARED ^(t)  01:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your reversion on this article

I fail to see the problem with that medal board, especially when it is conveying information that isn't anywhere else in the article. Removing two pieces of information so that two other pieces don't appear twice (in two separate boards) does not seem ideal to me.
And more poignantly, you claimed in your edit summary a standard in +3000 articles. Although that format is indeed repeated across a large number of articles, the history pages show (the articles' and yours) that you are yourself the creator of that standard. The thing is, you don't get to create a Wikipedia "standard" by "mass editing" (that's not the best expression, I know, see ahead) yourself. And let me pause here, since I do realize that the expression "mass editing" carries (or can carry) a derrogatory meaning, and that's not what I mean at all: you've been doing a very good work to expand Wikipedia's coverage of Olympic sport. But I'm sure you will understand the...difficulty in claiming a "standard" that you created yourself, apparently without community discussion (and again, that's not to say that your edits were in any way bad).
Considering what I said about this particular article — that the board conveys information that is not found anywhere else in the article — which I exposed in my edit summary, the correct course of action would have been to start a thread on the article's talk page, or since I was the author, at least on my talk page, and try to reach some kind of compromise about the information that is being excluded by removing the board.
At this point, per what I have said, I see no community consensus that would invalidate the presence of that board in the "Medals" section, although I don't really have any problems with finding some other place in the article to include the information in question. Redux 00:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There was lots of discussion about the article format with respect to medal tables etc. Look in the Olympics WikiProject archives. I just happened to be the editor to implement that on the thousands of Olympic articles, but that doesn't mean I'm the only person who wants it that way.

In any case, the information in that little box was redundant to the main infobox. Medal counts and ranking is all included there - what else were you trying to convey? Andrwsc 00:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, your table includes the Olympic rings as a decoration, and we have been diligently trying to remove them from these pages as that usage is a fair-use violation. Andrwsc 00:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The old table (incidentally, the rings were inserted by another user, removed by a third user, then re-inserted by yet another user...a neverending circle of which I stayed clear) was conveying two ranks: one was the official rank by gold medal (and having the others as "tie-breakers"), and the other was the somewhat popular rank by sheer number of medals, none of which are displayed on the board at the moment. Redux 02:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, take another look. The "rank=" parameter to the infobox displays the rank immediately next to the medal counts. I added Brazil's rank of 16th with my most recent edit. As for having two ranks, well, that issue was debated to death after the 2004 Games and re-opened after the 2006 Games, and the consensus was that all the Wikipedia pages should only use the same ranking as used (unofficially) by the IOC. Take a look at the "disclaimer" at the start of all the medal count articles such as 2004 Summer Olympics medal count. If you really feel strongly that this article needs mention of the other ranking, then it ought to be in the prose text of that section. Having that little table is totally superfluous. There is NO good reason why this article should be different from every other Olympic article. Andrwsc 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I could have swarn that that rank was not there (on the board, that is)...then again, I had been looking at other countries' boards as well, so maybe it was missing in one of them. Ok, that solves it for the "almost official" rank :).
Yes, I remember there being a discussion over whether or not to use the other ranking (I believe it started when someone created an article for that ranking — or maybe it was an extra column on the board of the "main" article) back when the 2004 Games were ongoing. I didn't recall it being reopened by the 2006 Winter Games though. Very well, tomorrow I'll try to figure out a way to work that into the text of the article.
A couple of points though: 1) Although it helps that we have certain standardized features (such as an infobox at the top of each article), we needn't strive for articles that are mostly standardized. The fact that one (or some of the) article(s) may feature something that isn't used in any other article doesn't mean that we need to either lose that different thing or only keep it if it's incorporated into every other article. That procedure can at times cost us content, quality, etc.; 2) I noticed that you created one infobox for each country (at [[Template:Infobox Olympics {{country}}]]), normally we try to create a single template, incorporating what we've come to call "exoteric code" (humorous jargon for seemingly complicated wiki code) that allows for the template to adjust to any related subject by filling out one parameter. The current templates are only using it for specific information for each edition of the Games for each country, but considering that the names of the articles are standardized, and so are (most) of the files for the national flags, it should be possible to replace those with a single template, wherein filling out a parameter line with the country's name would cause all the links to point to (that country) at the X Games, the corresponding national flag, etc. It would be a much wiser use of space, and a simplification of process, to replace +150 templates (I'd assume, since it's roughly one per country in the Olympics) with one, adaptable template. Unless you guys had some reason I don't know of for opting for individual templates for each country. Redux 05:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, please take another look at the implementation of those infoboxes. I did create a single {{Infobox Country Olympics}} to handle all the visual appearance and "esoteric stuff". Obviously, that makes it easy to make a single edit to alter certain things. (For example, the "rank=" parameter was added later, which is why it doesn't appear on all the pages yet.)

However, the "second level" templates (one per nation, such as {{Infobox Olympics Brazil}} contain items that would otherwise be duplicated for every instance of the infobox, such as the links to the NOC article and website, and the lists of appearances. This makes it easy to add the link to 2008, for example, in a single spot instead of possibly dozens of articles.

Trust me, these templates are well-thought out. Andrwsc 06:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to know :-) . On a completely unrelated note (or maybe sort of), I just noticed we don't have a single event-specific entry for the Swimming events in the 2000 Summer Games (Sydney, Australia), "only" the more general entry with the medalists. Maybe this should be brought up on the Olympics WikiProject? Redux 16:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the whole Olympic WikiProject is a massive work in progress. One eventual goal is to have per-event articles with complete results, but right now, the large majority of sports only have the per-Games event and medal summaries. (Actually, only two days ago I finished the last of those articles; many were still redlinks up until then!) Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics is only one of hundreds of similar articles in that condition, so I'm not sure that it merits special attention over any of the others, but feel free to post a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports Olympics if you want to capture the attention of one of us hard-core Olympic editors to see if someone wants to take it on. Andrwsc 17:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How make seed numbers optional in Template:TeamBracket

I have seen you changed the Template:8TeamBracket-Tennis3, and now the seed numbers are optional. I have got no idea about templates, but I have tried to do the same in the Template:4TeamBracket-Tennis3 without being succesful. The result is here: User:MontanNito/Proves. I think the only mistake is one of those black lines.. Could you help me? Thank you very much. MontanNito 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You were very close! I fixed the bottom black line and also removed some extra whitespace at the top of the table. Looks good now! Andrwsc 00:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :-) And congratulations for the article about Badminton at the 1972 Summer Olympics, I think it could have been quite difficult to find the information. MontanNito 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. Actually, the Olympic results are readily available at this web site, so it was easy to fill in the 1972 tournament. I'll get around to 1988 at some point soon! Andrwsc 23:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Asiad Template

Hi Andrwsc,
Thanks for the template. I'll replace the appearances section, however, "Nations at the Year Asian Games" as of this time does not exist except for some nations for Asiad 2006 (too bad). So I guess, i'll have to start creating them. For the mean time, i'll wikilink the main article for each year (e.g. appearance of CHN in 1951 will be linked to 1951 Asian Games). Thanks again. --RebSkii 16:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think you want a long list of redlinks for each country because the full set of "Nation at the xxxx Asian Games" articles don't exist. However, I think you can still add the list without wikilinks, which is what I put together for CHN and JPN as examples. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 17:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

hi Andrwsc.

i have a question: why is it that when it that when i enter MAC (for Macau) in the NOC parameter, it seems that it doesn't work? thanks. --RebSkii 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because MAC is not an IOC country code. Macau has never competed as a team at the Olympic Games, and there is no National Olympic Committee (NOC) for Macau, so there is no country code. If you look at this web site you can see all the country codes for Asian NOCs and Macau isn't one of them. Andrwsc 17:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I really was unsure (and still am) what do with regarding the edits of User:David Krysakowski. I am open to any feedback regarding this matter. --Kukini 19:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The block was only for 3 hours...soon to lift itself. If he continues to not respond, but delete huge chunks, I imagine I will continue to be concerned. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. --Kukini 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi...he is back at editing with no edit summaries again. --Kukini 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed... I've had to cleanup some changes, but most of them are good edits. Andrwsc 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

Yeah, sorry. The context of what's being said falls apart if the article isn't at the end of the blue link. And redirects are cheap, so deleting them isn't essential to the good running of the 'pedia whilst, in this single case, keeping them might be. ⇨REDVEЯS 21:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. I know that redirects are cheap, but I'm somewhat retentive and like to clean up the obviously unnecessary ones if possible.... Andrwsc 21:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Denial of speedy delete of redirects

I'm sorry, but those redirects are, in my opinion, neither detrimental nor unlikely to be requested. If another administrator deleted them, feel free to remove the tags and contact that admin directly, as I will not begrudge another admin their disagreement with my opinion. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Olympic ... medalists redirects

Sorry I've taken so long to reply – I was busy in the World Outside Wiki. I see you retagged the redirects and Nawlinwiki did the deletions. On reflection since they were disputed, perhaps taking them to WP:RFD might have been a good idea. Ah well... Cheers, Tonywalton  | Talk 13:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Medalist templates

Hi, Andrwsc. I've seen you have created the {{Olympic[Medal]Medalist}} template series. They'll do great, but I have a question: did we arrived on a decision on the "Medal" cell display style? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we did, but I went bold and put together those templates in case we agree upon the vertical style. I wanted to see how easy it would be to create those tables, and I like the results. Andrwsc 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Good. Just to know I still prefer the #5 version with the medal names aligned on center and the medal images. But if people find the images redundant, I can go perfectly with #4. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 19:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

translating some olympic sport templates in other languages

Hi Andrwsc, This is a help request related with one of the templates you've worked in, the olympic flags one.

I copied a few of the english Wikipedia FlagIOC and related country templates, to the portuguese language wikipedia (where my username is Alexg, not the same as in here).

The goal is to use them in medal tables or other lists of participating countries in the Olympic Games, being able to just copy the tables from the english version, with automatic adaptation.

However, the same structure when applied in the portuguese language wikipedia, did not work as it should, because only the most recent flag of a country appears.

And the contents of the several templates are the same in both languages, except that in portuguese I've not included link generation for links as "Greece at the 1996 Summer Olympics" - and thus the template text is a bit shorter.

As a test, I've tried to work with the greek flag because it's a good example of a flag change.

I have:

in portuguese ("Predefinição" is the word for "template")

• pt:Predefinição:FlagIOC -
• pt:Predefinição:Country IOC alias GRE - includes only the name of the country = "Grécia" ("Greece")
• pt:Predefinição:Country flag IOC alias GRE - switch command to choose the correct flag

in english

• Template:FlagIOC - common template
• Template:Country IOC alias GRE - includes only the name of the country = "Greece"
• Template:Country flag IOC alias GRE - switch command to choose the correct flag

When I write in a portuguese page:

{{flagIOC|GRE|1896 Summer}}

the result is  Greece (except the name of the country which is in portuguese, and correct)

but it should be:  Greece

Any ideas? Thanks for the help,

Zdtrlik 19:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look now. You need to pass the "1896 Summer" argument to the country_flag_IOC_alias_GRE template for that switch to work. I would also suggest that you change to Portuguese. In English, the template works because all of the articles we have are of the form "Nation at the year Olympics". The Nation part comes from the Country_IOC_alias_xxx template and the year part comes from the second parameter to the flagIOC template. The "at the" and "Olympics" strings are hard-coded into the flagIOC template. I don't know what the translation to Portuguese would look like, but you need to follow a similar structure and make edits to the pt:Predefinição:FlagIOC and pt:Predefinição:Country flag IOC alias GRE templates appropriately. For example, if your articles all have the same naming style as pt:Brasil nos Jogos Olímpicos de Inverno de 2006, then I think you want "Inverno de 2006" to be the parameter you pass to your version of flagIOC and "nos Jogos Olímpicos de" would be hard-coded into your flagIOC as well. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 19:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrwsc, thanks for the great help, the templates look nice too in the portuguese wikipedia and I'll use them in the Olympic Games pages. Cheers, Zdtrlik 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobsleigh at the 1960 Winter Olympics

Andrwsc, do you think this article is really necessary? The sport per-year template shows it as not included on the Olympics' programme, but if we get to use the {{OlympicYearHeader}} or {{OlympicYearFooter}}, it will show an active link because this article exists, misleading the casual reader. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't really say anything the main article doesn't say. I will remove the links to it and put it up for deletion by PROD. That takes 5 days, but is way simpler than AFD. Andrwsc 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

About events per-year templates

Hello, Andrwsc. I'm sorry if I keep bothering you with questions after questions and doubts after doubts, but they come up and sometimes they don't get answered on the discussion page as swiftly as I wished. Therefore, I come directly to you because I see you as the main figure in this whole project, thus surely you'll help me.

The concerned topic is this one. You agree with the creation of such kind of templates, to be embedded on all related per-year event pages? What about the layout? Check differents styles i've made for the springboard events – version #1, version #2 and version #3.

I'd appreciate your opinion. Sorry for the disturbance. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parutakupiu, there's no "disturbance"! Sorry for not replying on the WikiProject page - sometimes I have an immediate opinion on a topic and I will reply quickly, and sometimes I need to think about something, so I take some time.

In this case, I guess I'm not sure about your proposal. The templates certainly look good, so there's no issue there, but I'm weighing the pros and cons of another set of navigation boxes. I think there are instances on Wikipedia where proper use of categories and list pages are probably sufficient to navigate a topic, and other places where navigation boxes really are desired. For example, many athlete pages have an excessive use of navigation boxes, in my opinion. Take a look at Toni Sailer, for example. At least those five navigation boxes now utilize the show/hide feature - that page was very cluttered before. Even so, I'm not sure that it is a natural way for readers to want to navigate through Wikipedia. Do we really need a navigation box to go from one winner in a specific event at the world championships to the next? Wouldn't it be just as easy to have a "See also" section with links to List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing and List of Alpine Skiing World Champions and navigate from there?

It's not exactly a parallel situation, but perhaps the concept is similar -- the question to be answered is do we really need this new set of navigation boxes (which will number around 350-400 if we make them for all events) or are a set of categories and the existing medalist lists sufficient? I currently don't have a solid opinion on this myself, so I haven't offered one in response to your request on the WikiProject page. However, if you have a logical position to support whichever path you take, and can lay the foundation for a consistent implementation across all events (not just diving), then I would support you either way. Consistency is my biggest concern here. Hope this helps, Andrwsc 07:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Having your opinion always helps even if doesn't bring a response ;)

Come to think of it, now that you mentioned the categories, these pages already do have an "Event at the Olympics"-style category which lists all pages about that event throughout the Olympics. I only thought about such templates because these diving events' pages only have the upper-right "Sport events at the year Summer Olympics" navigation box and none at the bottom. But then again, many top-level sport articles show a "Sport at the Summer Olympics" navigation box along with a similar grouping category. I don't know... Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

You recently contacted me about the unreferenced tag. I add the tag to any article I come across on new page patrol lacking in ANY sources, in the hope that the original author will provide some. Apologies if I applied it to somewhere where it was unneeded, I believe in the importance of references. J Milburn 16:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:4TeamBracket

Although you may be right about the "em" changes, many users who use this and other similar templates would like to see the empty seed spaces when a tournament is current and "in progress" to indicate that the seeding has yet been determined. [7] [8] [9]

Template:Round4 is probably what you really want, although I am trying to find a formatting bug when it is used with Template:flagIOCteam. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:32TeamBracket-Tennis3

Hello, I have seen you are an expert on templates, and I wonder if it's possible to create a Template:32TeamBracket-Tennis3. There are templates 32TeamBracket, like Template:32TeamBracket, but in the articles about badminton it is used the the Tennis3 version, and the biggest is Template:16TeamBracket-Compact-Tennis3. Is it possible to create it without a hard work? MontanNito 10:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would be possible, but my concern is that adding the extra round limits the size of the player/team name too much, especially since there would be three table cells for the scores. I will look into it. Andrwsc 21:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I though it could be useful for badminton article, but if it's difficult or too much work, don't worry. :-) MontanNito 21:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrwsc, I've tried to do the draw, here is the result: User:MontanNito/Proves#32TeamBracket-Compact. So if you are intersted on doing it, I think now there isn't too much work to do. There's a mistake in the finals, it should be at the right; it seems no to be any problem about the size of the player/team name. MontanNito 17:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the flag in my signature

Thanks for the head's up! However, I have discontinued the use of the flag. I appreciate the comment, though. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 05:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

1924 Olympics

Thanks for fixing my mistake. I suppose then that BBC makes mistakes too. Here's my reference: [10]. Any interest in helping me figure out which Olympics, if any, had volleyball as a demonstration sport? Rracecarr 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, found a reference for 1928. [11]. I'll edit volleyball and Volleyball at the Summer Olympics accordingly. Rracecarr 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were right! Take a look at page 627-628 of the official report (in French, alas). Volleyball is mentioned as one of the "children's games" demonstrated ("Jeux de l’enfance" on page 91). There certainly isn't enough material there to warrant a whole Volleyball at the 1924 Summer Olympics article, so I think the edit to the 1924 Summer Olympics article is correct, but I think your edits to the other two articles are good. Andrwsc 23:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixing my flag templates

Thank you very, very much for converting a whole bunch of garbled text into some flag templates that are intelligible. I had accidentally substed the templates, and needless to say, I forgot what templates they were (and I was too lazy to find them again). Thanks very much for fixing them for me! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

flag template fixes

I noticed you fixed a template on my user page. Although I don't object to the change I wonder if it is not running against a Wiki policy to make changes to another User's page. Shouldn't such action at least be preceded by a notice that there is an intent to make a change and, if the user objects, where to express their position? --JAXHERE | ^Talk 13:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. See Wikipedia:User page. Pages in user space still belong to the community. The policy does state that it is usually best to bring attention on the talk page first, but it doesn't forbid editing by any user. In this case, it was a trivial housekeeping edit, so I saw no harm. Sorry for any inconvenience. Andrwsc 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No big deal.JAXHERE | ^Talk 17:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Flagmania

1. Checkout User talk:Andrwsc/Flagtest
2. [12]
3. [13]

See also my talk page. Cheers ;-), --Ligulem 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello. I need your help with User:SndrAndrss. I don't know if you are an administrator or not, but I have seen you have ad some trouble with him as well. I am about ready to call for a mediation over the template {{Nordic skiing World Championships}} because he keeps putting the venue locations in on the years and I have told him repeatedly that it is not needed because it creates clutter. I set this template up in a matter similar to what is on the Olympic Games template, but to np avail. Can you please help? Chris 16:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I am not an admin, and I have no idea how to effectively appeal to SndrAndrss! He/she simply refuses to understand how to use talk pages (both in article space and user space) to communicate with other editors, nor how to use edit summaries. I am at a loss too. I don't know what the process here is, but if you need me to "testify" to an admin, let me know, and I can describe the disruption he/she has caused to the pages that I have been working on. Andrwsc 19:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You can go one of two I have asked assistance to: User:Wizardman and User: Johan Elisson. The former just became and administrator and the latter has had previous problems with User:SndAndrss. Maybe we can get a permanent block on this user so they can leave us alone. Chris 21:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll post a message on their talk pages soon. However, I'm thinking that a permanent block seems a bit harsh. SndrAndrss causes a lot of trouble, but also adds a lot of material. He/she is not malicious, just clueless. The "Wikipedia death penalty" seems to me to be too strong a punishment for cluelessness. Andrwsc 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correction SLO vs SVN

Slovenia has two three-letter codes, more popular (and IOC) one is SLO, whereas the ISO one is SVN Country_codes:_S#Slovenia! The "good guys" form Microsoft have come up with a third one: SLV!? Thanks for an expedient fix! MGTom 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

There are quite a few nations that have different codes, unfortunately! Rest assured that all the correct templates have been created for the Olympic ones. Andrwsc 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism On Your Page

Ali Hamed El Bastawisi vandalised your user page today, well you could call it vandalism but he was just telling you to use capital letters, strange I know! I reverted it for you anyway. ~ JFBurton 22:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems his vandalism isnt offensive or incivil, but just editing things for no reason. ~ JFBurton 11:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pelle Lindbergh

Sorry for getting in your way. I was going to do the same thing, after I found out that undoing the second part of his undiscussed move didn't fix the problem. Did I mess up your plans to put the discussion template on the page? We can maybe move Per-Erik back to Per-Eric for now if you'd like, then if you put the discussion template (same as the template you put on WP:RM but RM changed to RMtalk in template name), I'll support you. For now I'll stand back and wait to hear from you. Gene Nygaard 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

If you want to take it from here, please do so! I'm just annoyed at SndrAndrss' edits like this, as I'm sure you are too. Andrwsc 20:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I stuck this on your user page instead of your talk page. Sorry about that, I've been around long enough to know where to put it but was just careless. Because I started the discussion template, you should ratify your nomination with a support vote at Talk:Per-Eric Lindbergh as well--just support as nominator would do, just so whoever reviews it doesn't count me as nominator. (I reverted my own change halfway back to Søndre's first move.) Gene Nygaard 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

flag LES-1966

I saw your edit to Timeline of the introduction of television in countries and was wondering if you knew how to fix the 1978 mention of Lesotho there. The old template seems gone, and I tried to replace it with {{flagcountry|Lesotho|1966}}, but it doesn't seem to work. TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 12:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I can fix that. Andrwsc 17:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

72.204.230.216

Hey, could you keep an eye on 72.204.230.216 (talk · contribs) (almost certainly Harvardlaw (talk · contribs) not signed in)? He keeps adding Image:Olympic rings.svg to Olympic medalist articles and every once in a while tries to sneak in comments about himself in wrestling articles. Thanks -- Jonel | Speak 13:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, is that the same guy who made some useless stubs in the wrestling series a few months ago? I went back and completed several of them, so I have a bunch on my watchlist. I will keep an eye out. On a related note, I have been removing the rings image from articles where I can. The majority of remaining articles are for athletes that need an update to their "medal infobox" format. I got rid of a lot when I put the nation Olympic infoboxes on the set of Nation at the year Olympics pages. Andrwsc 17:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap, I see what you mean. He has added a non-standard infobox to dozens of pages. Damn. Andrwsc 17:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the same one. I'm a bit busy in meatspace at the moment and don't have time to do much constructive here, much less watch over this guy. Trying to talk to him is much like conversing with a brick wall, too. I've already cleaned up his infobox headers twice, he just puts 'em back in. -- Jonel | Speak 22:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI - Harvardlaw and a few of his many IPs have been banned, but there is no banned image on the Harvardlaw page. --EarthPerson 05:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Article split on Olympic medalists in cross country skiing

Have you looked at the article List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing lately? Are you interested in splitting this by gender? I ask this because the file is 40 kB is size. Chris 15:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did see your request. I'm ok either way, so if you want to split it, please go ahead. The only comment I would make is that I think we need to modify the naming comventions on those articles, so that the article name for men's medalists, for example, would be List of Olympic medalists in men's cross-country skiing instead of List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing (men) (which would follow the current "norm"). I think the parenthesis in the article name goes against some MOS recommendation, if I remember. Andrwsc 17:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The change is done per naming convention and request. Chris 16:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

List of World War II films

I hadc osted my explanation on the discussion page. You see, after the war Italy became a republic and thus removed the shield of Savoy from their national flag. See Italian flag The only place i knew of to get an image of Italys 1940s flag was at the old olympics pages.If you know of another place where I can find the correct Italian flag for that period I would be more than happy to put them on the list.--Dudeman5685 01:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad that got cleared up.--Dudeman5685 01:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Image:Olympic rings.svg

Hi. I see that you are removing the Image:Olympic rings.svg from numerous articles as I was doing earlier. User:VegaDark noticed I was doing this and we talked about it on my talk page here:User_talk:EarthPerson#Olympics_image_removal. It seems like you've got a greater understanding of the proper use of the image. Is there a way the permissions on the image can be made clear about the specific use? Cheers. --EarthPerson 05:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting old country array templates

Today I deleted more than 1,000 old country templates [14]. Of course I checked the "What links here" of each and left the ones that are still transcluded. Now I do have deletitis :-). --Ligulem 23:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's great, thanks! You may have noticed that I have been adding variants to some of the templates and editing articles to use them. That has orphaned quite a few of the new Country_data_xxx templates too. I have been compiling a list and can post it for you when it is ready to go. Andrwsc 23:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep. I'm watching you: Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Country_data_templates (see also SndrAndrss' edit...). I will zap the orphaned ones. Just feed me with the list. --Ligulem 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, what is SndrAndrss up to now....??? I fear to look.... Andrwsc 23:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so bad, this one. I fixed the article so Country_data_BULold is now orphaned. Andrwsc 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Is gone. --Ligulem 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

National football squad player

Hey, good job on updating that template. I was thinking about the best way to fix that problem (i.e. changing that template or some other solution), but you took care of it nicely. ;) Andrwsc 19:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. And thanks back to you for your careful work and good suggestions for the flag templates. --Ligulem 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

{{Cycling past winner rider}}

Thanks for your work in updating {{Cycling past winner rider}} - it has also helped in that I'll be able to copy the code in a couple of other similar templates I'm developing. Mk3severo 01:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sure, no worries! I was wondering if anybody would be upset since I just went in there and made changes without any discussion, as I am trying to clean up the flag templates. Glad it worked out! Andrwsc 01:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

THE question

Would you accept a nomination for adminship? I would nominate you, if you're brave enough. If you would like to read a draft of my nomination first, that would be fine (let me know). Warning: I'm not such a good nom-writer, but I do have a track record of 100% success in nominations :-) (with an extremely large data set). --Ligulem 12:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if I should request or not... It would certainly help if I didn't nominate myself, and I am honored that you would offer to nominate me, thanks!! I know that admin tools would help me with the things I like to do ("infrastructure work"), and there are a couple of other processes that I would probably be involved in (such as speedy delete and prod reviews), but I'm not sure that I want to spend a lot of time on random disputes, etc. Let me ask you, is that something you get asked to do a lot? Can a person be a "selective admin" and focus on areas of personal interest? Even so, with that slight bit of hesitation, I would certainly be happy for you to nominate me, and I thank you for making the offer! Andrwsc 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Andrwsc, I'm definitely a "selective" admin ... and I was very upfront about that in my RfA. Whether a similar RfA would pass in today's climate, I don't know but I would definitely support you. You are probably going to face criticism that most of your work has been in sports related (specifically Olympics, but I know that you've done a lot of other things on other sport pages) pages and that you don't have a broad enough focus on other topics. Also, most of the work we do on the Olympics stuff is only with a small handful of other edits so it's not like we're dealing with edit wars all the time. I would make sure in your questions that you highlight all of the work that you've done on templates and other information to really clean-up the Olympics pages and make things more standard. I would focus on why you want / need the tools to accomplish work that you've already been doing. I don't know if you tend to follow a lot of the athletes / living people bios on your watchlist, but if you do I would also highlight that to show how useful something like the rollback tool would be. You can take a look at my closed RfA (it's under Sreed1234 - not Sue Anne) to see how I responded to some of the criticism. --Sue Anne 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sue Anne, I appreciate the comments and support! Andrwsc 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well. I for one nominated myself. And I passed on the second try. Some (rare, I believe) people even prefer self noms. The benefit of a self nom is you can write your nomination yourself and you are in control of the exact timing (which is sometimes important...). Also a self nom is not colored by dislikes for the nominator (people that dislike me might oppose you if I'm your nominator, beware! :-). I was in a thick dispute (WP:AUM) before I got the mop. But since then, I've not been in any dispute (maybe I try to stay out of things like WP:AUM now, in order not to loose my admin bit :-). I'm certainly not a typical admin - but who is? I'm not sure I would pass again, as I'm only a template fiddler (no article writer). What especially impresses me about you is your calm and detail-caring style and you are good in describing complex matters and discussing them. The RfA process is a pain, but it's best to consider it as "no big deal" and humbly accept whatever comes out without big emotions and continue to do good work even if you fail. In fact, it is somewhat a waste of time on all sides (going through RfA), but that's the best process we currently have on this wiki and the project has been quite successful with that. Whatever you decide, you do have my support either way. Now or anytime.
Two minor recommendations: (1) never ever withdraw your RfA once the process has started, (2) do activate the wiki-email feature so that people can email you (this increases your chances because people do like to send emails in private occasionally – also, blocked users can't post to your talk page). --Ligulem 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, great, let's go for it then! Thanks very much for your support. Andrwsc 18:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I whipped up your RfA page at User:Ligulem/work/Andrwsc. Feedback/suggestions/corrections are welcome. Said page is intended to be moved when ready to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrwsc (you should do the move when you've answered the questions and you feel you're ready. And do not forget adjust the end time when doing the move). Once the move is done, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Andrwsc must be transcluded into Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. --Ligulem 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Uh. You copied the page instead of moving. I hope there aren't any complaints about that (my signing edit is not on the page history of the RfA page). Otherwise, well done and good luck! --Ligulem 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, missed that! Thanks again for your support. Andrwsc 22:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for starting that RfA under my userspace. Not very well thought out by me [15]. I could swear this worked better in the past. The original idea once was to lighten the psychological pressure a bit and not having a page lingering at the "official" location in case the candidate decides not to run the RfA after having read the nomination statement. Sigh. --Ligulem 00:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I don't think it's a big deal, is it? Andrwsc 00:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks :-). --Ligulem 00:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

re: my oppose

Nobody can tell what's in a nominee's head. The one thing I do know is that nobody with so few policy-oriented projectspace edits could possibly be familiar enough with the process, which is what adminship primarily entails. When I supportna RfA, I declare that I trust this person to apply the deletion, blocking, and and protection policies correctly, and in my experience nobody with only 133 projectspace edits could have possibly developed such expertise. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 01:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are wrong about me, but the only way to demonstrate that is for you to look through my edit history. I think your reliance on edit counts may be "statistically significant", but not certain. Andrwsc 03:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly looked through your edits carefully, I promise you. - Tragic Baboon (banana receptacle) 05:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

To inquire on your sources, and for other purposes.

Hey there! I was just going through The 2004 sport pages and saw that a while ago you have added the participating nations section to Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics. There are certainly a lot of nations there, so I was wondering where you got your stuff. When I did even a small one for the archery thing, I sorted through the links on WP (and cross-checked them with some BBC site, of course) to come up with my list but it took forever. I was hoping you had somewhere where all the participants for each event by nation or something like that is posted.

I made a post on WT:OLYMPICS about medal tables, if you wanted to look at it.

I also saw that you were nominated for adminship, and I voted with Olympic support! _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!! As for the participating nations for 2004 weightlifting, I tabulated that by hand from the set of individual results pages. A bit tedious, as you have discovered for archery. I use Excel a lot for editing these sorts of things, so my process was to copy & paste the results tables from each event page into a spreadsheet then sum up the totals by country code. I know that some past Games reports have included number of competitors by sport, so it would be a lot easier to update those pages! Andrwsc 19:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the same thing with excel. Once I get going, I'll have excel open for laying out tables, Word open for quickly doing some replacements to certain text, and AWB open for doing massive changes. It's annoying, but it gets the job done faster than "by hand." The problem with some events though may be that some people compete in two events, so using that method they'd be counted twice. To bypass that, all we'd have to do is just sort the list of people and NOCs and delete the doubles. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  19:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, lots of care needs to be taken not to double-count. For weightlifting, that was not a problem! Andrwsc 20:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you, if you're not already, to make sure to double check your information from some official source and not just rely on what may or may not be on another individual Olympic page. I'm adding / reformatting all the Country at 2006 Winter Olympics pages right now, and I had found a handful of errors, so I'm just going strictly by the main resource vs. relying what someone may have added to the page. --Sue Anne 20:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definitely important. As I'm going through reformatting the 2004 pages, I haven't yet looked to find mistakes, but if something's suspicious, I'll look into it. It's just so hard to double check things when it's in a huge mess. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  20:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the 2004 results, the Yahoo results seem to be the best available online source, so I have been double-checking against that for the sports that I have reformatted & updated (sailing, canoeing, weightlifting, etc.) Andrwsc 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This BBC sports site is also helpful. I've been using this for the most part. It has a lot of specifics. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  20:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's bothered me that there is only one listed reference on pages such as Canoeing at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's C-1 1000 metres and Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics - Men's 56 kg. I think we ought to get around to updating all the 2004 event-specific pages with {{cite web}} references to both Yahoo and BBC to help satisfy some verifiability concerns. Hopefully the AAFLA site will have a PDF of the official report someday... Andrwsc 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sue Anne had mentioned before that she was working on the 2006 pages. If at any point she (you) need lists of athletes by sport, nation, etc, NBC has here a comprehensive search for athletes on the side bar. And I'm sure it has other things too, but I'm searching for 2004 pages. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  22:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Template:Life path

Thanks for updating my template and my user page. I'm thinking about updating it too, in a more stylistic sense. --giandrea 00:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I'm happy you're ok with my changes! We're planning to change the way the {{flag}} template works, and if we did that without making those edits to your user page, everything would have looked different. Andrwsc 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)