This page is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
Stephen Harrison (July 26, 2021). "How to Use Wikipedia When You're Watching the Olympics". Slate (magazine). Retrieved July 27, 2021. "The subject of pictures is the most painful one," wrote Wikipedia user Nimrodbr, who is active in the volunteer group WikiProject Olympics. At press time, some of the key athletes on the United States women's and men's gymnastics teams, including stars like Jordan Chiles and Brody Malone, do not yet have featured images on their respective Wikipedia pages.
To start a new discussion section, please click here
Eyof 2022
I dont know if i can write this here, but i found that Eyof belong under this portal. I tried fix next two Eyof in 2022 but i dont know how to upload logo of this two games. If there is someone who know how to upload fair use logo fot this two games i would be very happy and will continue to do work on Eyof in future. I added official links to Vukoatti 2022 and Banská Bystrica 2022 if someone wanted help me with those logos.
Countries without Olympic/Paralympic Good Article: Angola, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Papua New Guinea, Turkmenistan
Countries without Olympic GA but have Paralympic GA: Burkina Faso, Republic of the Congo, El Salvador, Honduras, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Palestine, Seychelles
Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a focus during July, August and September on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!--Ipigott (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an Olympics expert, and was confused while creating a stub for someone who was the first to qualify for the Olympics in her sport from her country but not the first to compete. (Though one confused source said she was first to compete). I found this which explained a little about the Tripartite Commission, but it might be helpful if someone could write an article, or a section, describing the system, for the benefit of non-experts. I see that the term crops up in quite a few articles already, and there are five redlinks to it. PamD17:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm one of the Women in Red project - see previous-but-one post. Getting this drafted ahead of tomorrow's start date. PamD17:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @Jonel:, looks useful. I see that there are 3-400 articles with "Tripartite Commission" and "Olympics", so someone who's a dab hand at AWB might like to link a few more than the 8 or so currently linked, for the benefit of other non-Olympic-geek readers like myself who read the term and are curious about it. Thanks. PamD20:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically there is no "Independent Paralympians" group this year (at least as far as I can tell), but there is the Refugee team and (of course) RPC. The issue is that the Refugee Team technically competed as Independent Paralympic Athletes in 2016.
First, consider the '16 team as Refugees and break it out of our summary article (thus having '16 and '20 Summer being "Refugee" and '92, 2000, and '20 the "Independents"), so the '16 link would be pulled from the first four lists and added to the fifth
Second, consider the '20 Refugee team as its own/new thing. This is basically the status quo at the moment.
Third, consider the '20 RPC (Russians) as the outlier and put the '20 Refugees in with the Independents.
Personally, I'm somewhat with the second option, because from everything I've seen they specifically didn't call the '16 group "Refugees" even though they're now referring to the '20 group as "the second group of refugees". Anywho, thoughts and opinions are appreciated. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would go with the first option. As you explain, it is the same "team", just with a new name. (And to cover all bases, the current Russian-not-Russia Olympic/Paralympic team, of course, is unaffiliated with the previous team Russia, and thus is covered separately.) Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Number of team rosters in several sports at 2020 Summer Olympics
On 3 July 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) confirmed alternates can be used in EACH association football/field hockey/handball/rugby sevens/water polo match at the 2020 Summer Olympics due to the challenges posed by COVID-19. (Sources: 1, 2)
I would say yes, as the "Alternates" are able to play due to the flexibility, so all 22 footballers could play for one country. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addition, it's not that team will increase in football from 18 to 22 "Only 18 players can be named in match day squads, despite the increase." SportsOlympic (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I say yes - there is now no difference in status between the original 18-player squad selected and the 4 players formerely named as alternate players. Squads, like Zambia, who announced after the decision to change the rules named a 22-player squad and no one is named as alternates. --SuperJew (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others comments, from the few Rugby Sevens squads I've seen so far they've not tended to name who the additional player is. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to put a note on the page of each country with alternates explaining they can compete. However, they do not count towards the official total of the team. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for some help in modifying their infobox/template to accommodate their first Winter games appearance, and to eliminate all the red links for past games that they were not part of. I am a little cautious though since they have not actually sent an athlete to any games, but merely have qualified one. Thank you.18abruce (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a journalist who has written a lot about Wikipedia for different publications. Some of my stories are available here www.stephenharrison.com
Reaching out because I am writing a story for Slate about coverage of the Olympic games on Wikipedia, and how Wikipedia can be used as a second screen while watching the games. I have reached out to a few editors on this project, specifically, and would prefer to speak to as many voices as possible. :) Would any of you be available to answer some questions about how volunteer editors such as yourself are covering the Olympics? If so, my email address to contact me is available on my website above. Thanks for considering. Stephenbharrison (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier this month the IOC announced that some team sports will have flexibility to use alternates as part of the Olympic competition. I wanted to gauge opinions here. Do we include the alternates within the full team size of countries or do we omit them and provide a note indicating alternates can be selected to the team? For starters, Canada did not include alternates as part of its team size. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Overlooked that. The reason I asked is because there's a curious situation with New Zealand's rowers and wondered whether they were counted as a team sport (in particular, it's the women's eight, which consists of a team of nine—8 rowers plus 1 coxswain—but they've listed eleven for that boat). Hence my interest. I don't have a strong opinion on it outside of rowing. Schwede6603:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've reverted some edits by editors who've already added X person to a sports category at the 2020 Games (example). Now looking at Category:Competitors at the 2020 Summer Olympics, I might be fighting a losing battle on this, although 252 wrestlers have already competed... I'm under the belief that until someone starts an event, then they get added to the category. Not simply qualifing, or on a plane to Tokyo, or even at the athlete's village. Actually starting an event. Seeing as the Games haven't started, and the ongoing COVID situation, I thought this would be the best way to go about it. But maybe not? What do others think? Thanks. LugnutsFire Walk with Me14:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I would wait until they competed or in team sports, until the competition is going on and they are on the team sheet. Kante4 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that until they actually compete, they're not competitors at the Games. Especially when I expect we'll see a number of late COVID-related withdrawals. And there will unused alternates for some sports (e.g. relay races) who I would only count in that category if they actually compete. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. If it was a few days before an Olympics, and without the COVID threat, I wouldn't even mention it. But it will be interesting to see how much disruption (if any) the C-situation brings. LugnutsFire Walk with Me16:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copying career history from FIS
Hello, I have a question. Instead of manually putting everything into a table, can I just copy and paste the career stats from FIS site? How will it violate copyright?
Hi there. Could I ask for discussion over the content and format of the 2020 Summer Olympics opening ceremony? Namely if the main section should be called Ceremony or Proceedings and the formats that have been presented. I'm looking for resolution, rather than agreement. Lama12 (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since competition in 3x3 basketball have started we should also create appropriate categories for both competition and players. Any suggestion on how to do this? My guess is that it would be best idea to copy structure used for beach volleyball? Nightfall87 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was planing to start the category "3x3 basketball players at the 2020 Summer Olympics" for this olympics later on (or earlier). Same for Olympic 3x3 basketball players of COUNTRY. Kante4 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't provide any reason to treat team sports differently from individual ones. Why have navigation between men's basketball and men's handball, but not easy navigation between men's basketball and women's golf? A 339-event template would be unwieldy. But having certain specific events but not others makes no sense. All of the links should be to sports/disciplines. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jonel. This team ball sports rule for inclusion of event specific links (rather than links to displine only) is unjustified (as far as I can tell). I see no reason why men's football should be treated differently to men's javelin (for example). The "only team ball sports were included" isn't even correct. Table tennis is a ball sport, and has team events, same with tennis. The actual rule is "only ball sports which only have team events", which is an equally unjustifed disinction. SSSB (talk) 18:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered there is an international UN treaty protecting the Olympics logo. If anyone would like to create the article for it here is the Wikidata item with more info.
Hello! I have just made the page Draft:Sailing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Finn and I was wondering if this was the place to ask for it to be checked and published, as this is my first time making a page related to the Olympics. I'm also planning on doing the other Sailing events that are missing. Thanks!
Rambor13, I've published it. It's rather "risky" to make Olympics pages in draft space when the Games are already underway as somebody else may start the page in parallel. I suggest you make Olympic pages in article space by using the redirects that are in place everywhere. Main thing you need to watch out for is links pointing to disambiguation pages. Please check all links for this article are pointing to the correct spot. Schwede6603:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template: FlagIOC vs FlagIOCteam
The use of FlagIOC (the only difference being the IOC code is removed) is the standard template being used for other related articles. See rugby sevens [3], softball [4], swimming [5] etc. However, other articles like fencing [6] use FlagIOCteam. Is there a difference on which template should be used? For starters I don't think the IOC code is necessary as it adds nothing to the article (I am assuming most people do not know IOC codes). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Some cases, such as in judo, the event you have deleted to IOC codes from[7][8][9], the athletes backpatches[10], as well as the writing on the screens in the competition venue[11] and the TV broadcast show the IOC code and not the full country name. This is only one reason why this information should be shown in the medal tables. This information also appears in official Olympic medal tables[12]. Please, provide a reason why it shouldn't appear on the medal tables. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Main issue: The need, of lack thereof, of "Medals by sport" & "Medals by day" tables for NOC's with only a few medals, sometime a single one. As Lucky102 showed me, Jr Tahun has been adding them to every medaling NOC, such as Argentina, Azerbaijan, Finland & Ivory Coast.
In my opinion, so long as no more than one medal has been won by the NOC in any single day, there is no need for the "Medals by day" table. In the same way, so long as no more than one medal has been won by the NOC in any single sport, there is no need for the "Medals by sport" table.
I do agree. When there is no long list of medals (say over 10) there is no reason for additional tables summarizing information that exists and is displayed. Adding additional tables is a visual burden. In my opinion also that a country wins 2 medals on the same day there is no reason for another table. These tables are good for countries that win many medals and then it makes sense to present summaries of the medals in different aspects. Nimrodbr (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The tables are very useful for countries with many medals, but for countries with less medals it's just repeating information. If the country has won five medals, I can pretty quickly find out which days and which sports they were won in, because that information is already there. As Nimrodbr also suggested, I think 10 medals would be a good mark. Countries with 10 or more medals could have the tables added, countries with less don't need it. Kaffe42 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the "Medals by day" table is ever needed. Why is it of use to breakdown which day was which medal? The fact that athletes won medals on the same day doesn't mean a necessary connection. --SuperJew (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the main medals table can be sorted by date, I agree with the position that the Medals by Day table is redundant. The Medals by Sport table provides a graphically compact summary that is nice even for countries with smaller medal counts, once more than one medal has been won. --Chefallen (talk) 21:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just add that in my view, if the "Medals by sport" table will be added, it will have to be sortable, but that's a different discussion. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MangoTareeface9: you wrote It's interesting to see what days did a country gain the most medals and when they didn't. Why is it "interesting"? Or the more correct question to ask on Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia and not a tabloid style newspaper, why is it informative or notable? The fact that certain sports were played together on the same day has no bearing one on the other and there is no relation between them. For example, the fact that Shi Tingmao and Wang Han won a gold medal in diving on 25 July didn't inspire Chen Lijun to win his gold medal in weightlifting. The things are not connected, while putting them together in such a table implies there is a connection. Regarding the argument below that media nicknames things like Super Saturday or Fantastic Friday, that is first of all journalistic tabloid-style writing written to pull readers and clicks, and secondly doesn't have lasting effect. In one year will there be articles about that one day that a country won 4/5/6 medals? Probably not as it's irrelevant. However, there will be articles about the athlete who won 8 medals in the 2004 Olympics. --SuperJew (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, since you asked - this is purely my own opinion but USA didn't get a single gold on their first day. That is unprecedented and can be seen on that table. Also people are interested on which country is going to end up with the most golds and like to know the latest daily updates. I bet unevenly on both USA and China to top the medal chart and the daily medal table was very fascinating to me as I like to know who scored the most golds in the latest day. It's a nice supplement table to refer to when following the gold medal race and it gives a decent historical view of tracking how the gold medal race progressed over the 16 days however I may just be the minority who are super interested in the daily gains table. If others disagree and think it's uninteresting, that is their opinion but it's definitely not mine. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MangoTareeface9: It sounds like (and correct me if I'm wrong), you're putting the emphasis on the use of Wikipedia as a place viewers use to track the medals on a daily basis while the Games are ongoing. However, such use is more in line with statistic sites or the official Olympics site. Here we are building an encyclopedia, and the aim is to include information which is notable and inforamtive in the future. For example, if you go now to read about the 1992 Summer Olympics, are you interested in the breakdown of medals per day for each nation? --SuperJew (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I guess such information would not be as important or valued as the years go by. Nobody would care about it as much in the future so I see your logic and ultimately agree with you.MangoTareeface9 (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that template should have stayed until the Olympics are over because removing them makes it difficult to keep count on number of medals won in the day to correctly count medals a nation won. BattleshipMan (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try and formalize this discussion with two votes, one on each table:
Oppose. There is value in the table of medals by date, for countries that have won say 10 or more medals. It shows a country's best day at the Games, which media often report, and give nicknames to, e.g. Super Saturday [13] or Fantastic Friday [14], without having to sort the main table and then do a manual count. Paora (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paora: I think that that's quite literally WP:TRIVIA. Legendary days like you speak of, if any exist, could be mentioned in the page header or a separate section. The "Medals by day" table does nothing to inform the reader of the cultural significance of any date, and so is true for it's nickname as well – if one exists at all. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: If it were trivia, why would you suggest that it should be mentioned in the article lede, or that it deserves a separate section? If that's the case, then it clearly isn't trivia! Paora (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partial oppose as User:Paora stated there can be value in it for countries which have won a lot of medals, to show if the country has an exceptional day of medal winning. I would suggest that there be a threshold above which these tables can be included, maybe the top 15 countries in ther medal table, where the country has won enough medals to make the table worthwhile? Obviously however they are of little value for countries which have only won a handful of medals though, and I would support them being ommitted in these cases. G-13114 (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's interesting to see what days did a country gain the most medals and when they didn't. And maybe it's pointless for countries that barely win anything but I think the top ten countries with the most medals be the exception to the rule.MangoTareeface9 (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Useful, interesting and informative for countries like Australia that have a surge early, and then a drought most years. The-Pope (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Interesting and notable statistic. For example, Australia had its most successful day at an Olympic games ever last week, which garnered significant media attention (link). Macosal (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose with a compromise For countries like the United States and China with a list of medalists a kilometer long provides an interesting snapshot of the country's performance over the course of the games and only takes up a small amount of the massive tracts of whitespace on the right side of that section. Perhaps it should only be populated for countries that win medals on five or more days and win four or more medals on at least one of those days.Torlek (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Agree with Torlek above. Showmebeef (talk)
Oppose and Conditionally Support only if we agree to remove both "by day" and "by sport" tables regardless of the medal numbers, since the information provided by the two tables can be obtained by sorting the detailed medal table, hence technically they ought to be treated the same way. --阿pp (talk) 02:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@阿pp: The argument is that the "Medals by day" table has no value what-so-ever, while the "Medals by sport" table has value when it holdss information about an NOC with many medal that otherwise couldn't bee seen all together in the "regular" table. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: At least to me those two have equal values. With a sortable regular table, both kind of information (medals on a certain day and medals for a sport) can be easily read with at most two sorting clicks. Yesterday I was talking to a friend of mine about whether USA's gold medals would pass China's on the final day. At that moment what I needed was exactly "medals by day" tables from past games as reference. Therefore I do think the "medals by day" table has some value. --阿pp (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@阿pp: By that, you assume that events are held in the same order on all games — which is an unsupported assumption. In addition, for NOCs with many medal, one cannot see all medalist together in the regular table. for some, not even in two glances. That is why "Medals by sport" can bu useful for some country, while there is no basis for the claim that "Medals by day" is more than just trivia. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deancarmeli: I am not saying that all competition schedules are the same. They are all different but somewhat similar but they do serve as supportive reference. I cannot see how "medals by sport" could be more meaningful than "medals by day". Some Nation got 1 gold and 2 silvers on 1 August. Meaningless indeed. Some other Nation got 2 golds and 2 silvers in athletics. What is that supposed to mean? The Nation is good or bad on athletics? You cannot judge that if you do not know how many athletes of the Nation entered, right? Then how about adding entry numbers of each sport also to the table as well, making it meaningful? --阿pp (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@阿pp: Realy? You're saying that a conversation like "Remember that time we won a medal in judo?" is less likely than a conversation like "Remember the time we won a medal on August 3rd?"? Come on, That's pure trivia. If an NOC HAs medal in athletics, they are probably good at it. No NOC specializes in "August 1st competitions". Deancarmeli (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't find the date tables meaningful. I accept others' arguments that there are situations where a particular day medal haul is interesting (like USA's first day, Australia's early surge), but I think those cases are rare enough to better be covered by a summary mentioning this on that country's page. Adding a table to every country is excessive. -- Lejman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of the "Medals by sport" tables for every NOC that either won less than 10 medals OR didn't win more than 1 medal in any single sport.
Support - such a table is redundent if there are not a significant number of medals, across a significant number of sports. Otherwise you can just count in your head. SSSB (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Useful, interesting and informative for countries like Australia that have a surge early, and then a drought most years. The-Pope (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With nobody opposing and a solid support, I think we can safely remove 'medals by date' tables from all pages and 'medals by sport' tables for countries with less than 10 medals or only 1 medal in each sport. Following WP:BOLD I will begin doing this. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the reverts are an issue even though we already have consensus. Also, has anyone informed Jr Tahun yet? Yet I think he may revert your removals too once he sees them Atom105 (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? There is no consensus. I misread the distinction of the two voting sections as "remove all, or keep if over 10 medals", not "remove by date or remove by sport". The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? Aren't there 8 votes in favour and 8 against? Where is the consensus? In general, I'm quite surprised how eager you are to remove information without any need. I quite often compare the timing of the medals won between olympic games. Why not just keep it? Is there any necessity to save these few bytes? Bloche (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bloche Yes, I was clearly too quick to make the change, that's my bad. But at the time there were only support for the suggestion. It wasn't until after the change was carried out that the oppose-votes came. Either way, it's my bad, I apologize. Kaffe42 (talk) 17:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Partial Support I'd like to lower the limit to less than 5 medals. (So keeping the table for countries with 5 medals and more.) Four is the upper limit for how many items most individual can subitize, so beyond that people would need to start counting. -- Lejman (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Related user
I just read this lovely piece in the Guardian and was wondering if we know what Guy Fraser's username is, I searched his name on the off chance he used that but couldn't find it; I'd love to give him a project-specific barnstar for all his work! Kingsif (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with that assumption if you get challenged and you can't find any non-directory/routine coverage, ie for an bench player in the Japanese handball team. Per WP:NAFL, playing in the top level league is assumed notable, but of the >13000 players who have done that, one was deleted at AFD earlier this year. The-Pope (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Medal count box for olympic players
Hi Project Olympic Team, can I check if we are allowed to create medal count box in individual player profiles for olympic players in each sport category and their world championships etc.?
I have been creating medal count box for some badminton players profile(WIP) but there is another wikipedian(from this olympic project and badminton project) reverting my edits for medal count box so I wish to clarify with the team here what is the standard?
Also, are we allowed to display the Olympic logo using "
" within the profile for players who won olympic medals just underneath the olympic games header for the olympic year and games that they won?
I would leave out the rings, makes it look clumsy and serves no purpose as the link is right aboveItalic text. For the medal count, i add "total=yes" to the top so we don't need to add the number to a total (did it to your original post if it is ok). Kante4 (talk) 09:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok!! so just to clarify, it is ok to put medal count boxes for athletes who don't have them? What if the WP(WikiProject) Team for that discipline(E.g. badminton) does not agree? can we still put the medal count infobox since the Olympic WP team here should take higher precedence? how can we resolve this between WP teams? Atom105 (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the athletes which i am editing have won at least 1 medal(bronze/silver or gold) and some of them up to dozens of them from various tournaments Atom105 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! noted on the olympics logo causing potential legal issue due to trademark. will remove them from athletes infobox when i edit them Atom105 (talk) 09:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that this kind of table might not be very effective. It's big, but it contains very little information. How about something like this? Build a more detailed table. --阿pp (talk) 10:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the edits were correct. The format for wrestling in 2016 was seemingly changed to only one round rather than two, so the edits are entirely in line as I see it. Should probably have been changed back in 2016, but better late than never. Kaffe42 (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WP Olympic Team, I was updating the scores for the women's 10m diving event for 2020 Summer Olympics and discovered that there was no diving section in the wikipedia page for Norway's 2020 Summer Olympics. I therefore created a new section and added in the relevant data. However, I am a new wikipedian and am not sure if I did it correctly(This is the first time I am doing such a major editing). Can I request a team member here to check the page to ensure that all the updates/citations and links are ok? Thank you!! Atom105 (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with Template Table for Sports Climbing for all participating countries
Hi WP Olympic Team, I have encountered another issue when updating scores for the 2020 Olympics.
Firstly, I noticed that the Score Table for Sports Climbing for all participating countries (I assume this because I checked AUT/GBR/FRA/POL/JPN pages and all have the same issue) is created using a template called "Generated from: 2020SportClimbingOlympics". When i clicked into the template using visual editing, I cannot update any scores. Switching to source editing also have the same issue where i cannot find the athlete's name and column to update the data. This template table is different from all other tables I have encountered so far which are basic tables which we can key data into. Can I check if this is intentional? How do we input scores and data in this case for template tables?
Secondly, I assumed that this was an error and deleted the empty template table and then created a basic table for Japan to update the data and scores BEFORE I noticed that all participating countries have the same issue. If the intent is to use Template Tables, please delete my Basic Table for Japan and revert the Template Table instead. I apologize for this. I should have checked here first and asked before doing this step.
I think the results go into the template code and once that’s done, the country results tables will automatically populate. At least that’s how I interpret this template setup. Quite genius but rather user unfriendly. Schwede6616:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I tried typing random data and inputs into the template fields but it doesn't show anything once I save it when using the visual editor. I will be grateful if anyone can teach me how to input the scores into such a template. Otherwise, is it ok if we switch back to basic table instead? Atom105 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have re-checked a few pages. Someone has deleted the template for USA and ROC a few days ago and used a basic table instead and populated the scores. The rest of the country pages(besides japan which i edited) are not updated cuz I think they are equally stumped as I am by the template Atom105 (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: The Sports Climbing records for USA/ROC tables are also different as USA page has Lane A/B data and ROC does not. I think we need to fix this issue before it snowballs. Atom105 (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The theory was that it would give one central place to put all of the scores, because some sports in other locations we have had wildly different layouts, styles, and content from country to country (even with the same sport/event), so I thought it best to standardize. Once the Women finish up tomorrow I will be updating and standardizing everything for consistency and accuracy across the various pages. Primefac (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for what it's worth, it was definitely a "road to hell" situation; I was looking at it yesterday and realized that the code is quite convoluted... Primefac (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood @Primefac:. I won't update the basic table for Japan then(ROC and USA also have basic tables but someone else is updating all the data) and all other countries template since you wish to use the template to updated them. Anyhow i also do not know how to update the template haha. It's too complicated for me as a new wikipidian Atom105 (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all the results in I decided that the "convenience" template isn't really that much of a convenience, so I just converted them to straight tables and updated all of the NOC pages. Primefac (talk) 00:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editing issue at United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics
I saw that. It has been removed again. None of the other articles have it so it needs to be discussed if ever brought back. But even if it was agreed to, what was there was pretty much all negative. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having a look, there seem to be a lot of opinion ("only a bronze", "disappointing" etc.) these require a direct citation. Having a look, there seem to be a handful of WP:NPOV issues that need to be fixed. It is worth pointing out that if the article ever wants to go beyond start-class it will need summaries about the events. SSSB (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edits also seem to suggest that being a world champion means that not get a medal automatically means a bad performance, which is simply not true, as well as placing unjustified weight on "bad" results, and ignoreing "good" ones. I am about to place a neutrality tag on the page, and leave some info on the talk page. SSSB (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking at the section, is the material supported by reliable sources? And, if so, is it free from the original synthesis? If one of the answers is no it should go.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BattleshipMan: I just wanted to come on here and apologize to you and everyone else dealing with the overview. I looked back at my edits and I was the one who accidentally brought it back yesterday when I was updating results on the page. For the record, I also support leaving that out. Rscala1 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Politics section at China at the 2020 Summer Olympics
China at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Politics Hi. Just wanna ask if the community has any consensus on if such section belongs to Nations at Olympics page. My opinion is that the Nations Summary page mainly focus on the delegation itself. Politics section seems off topic. Also I would like to quote part from the Team Summary issue at USA page above, "None of the other articles have it so it needs to be discussed if ever brought back." Thank you. --阿pp (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
On 6 Aug the situation got worse. User:Horse Eye's Back added more out-of-portion negative information to the section and removed a neutral politics statement (political leaders sent congratulation to the team). I no long assume him with good faith and I encourage more editor from this WikiProject take part in this discussion. --阿pp (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @阿pp, I second this and have already found a Wikipedia Page where this section on politics can be moved to. This is the controversies Page for the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics. If there are no disagreements, I propose we proceed to shift the content of the politics section to this page and delete it from the China's Nation Summary for the Olympics Atom105 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the feature coverage in WP:RS I’m not really seeing the "out-of-portion” or “negative” here. Why exactly have you stopped assuming good faith? Also just to be clear I didn’t mean to remove the piece you added from the government site, I’m not sure how that happened, sorry. I’m also curious as to why you took this here instead of trying to resolve it on the talk page, why blank the section and escalate? In theory you should open a talk page discussion before doing either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first news of information you added is "Chinese diplomats complain to NBC on coverage of Chinese Taipei/Taiwan", it's related to China, USA, and Taiwan, if you think non-delegation information should be on the nation's page as long as they are related to the nation, why only add the news on the China page? Another one: "A win by Taiwan over China in badminton increased tensions between the two countries". Again, why only add it on China page? "[T]he Embassy of China, London criticized the BBC’s coverage", how about Team GB page? --阿pp (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can definitely make sections on those pages if the coverage supports it, the coverage we have focuses on China because its Chinese diplomats taking action. I would note that our coverage comes from a broad range of reliable sources, it is certainly due coverage. Note that I did add it to China–United Kingdom relations[15]. Anytime a superpower talks about grave concerns thats a big deal, especially as its language almost never associated with sports. Also note that the BBC and NBC are corporations not governments, the Chinese state was not criticizing those countries directly so it isn’t really the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You see, it is the Chinese diplomats who are taking actions, not China at the 2020 Summer Olympics (THE DELEGATION). Chinese diplomats are taking actions all year around, but they do not somehow suddenly becomes part of the delegation during the Games. The page is not Chinese Government at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Of course those information could be on the China–UK relations page. That is not what I am against. I agree that those news are due coverage, but they do not belong to the page. Also you can see from this very talk page, consistency issue is very important on WikiProject Olympics. We have discussions on whether to add certain kinds of information on all Nations at Olympics page, or remove from all of them. (I am not saying there is some kind of policy or consensus already there, but this is in fact the practice here.) --阿pp (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think that government-related information (diplomats) should be on the page, meanwhile you removed a news statement from the Chinese government. I still don't assume you with good faith. --阿pp (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, China at the 2020 Summer Olympics... Not "Chinese athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics.” It wasn’t a news statement, it was a press release from Sun Chunlan’s office and I already said that was a mistake. Perhaps you have such a strong feeling about what the page should be about because you’ve made 625 edits to it (49.7% of all edits)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I contributed a lot on this page. What's wrong with that? That's pretty normal during the Olympics actually. I am against you not only because you are the only one proposing this idea to add the politics section, but also because you used a totally legal but actually unfair method to your advantage --- you asked for a semi-protection on the page and thus prevented at least two other users against your idea from editing the page, one of them is User:Atom105. I don't think you are a good faith editor, I think you are a troll. --阿pp (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, There is NOTHING wrong with User:阿pp making 625 edits(49.7% of all edits) on China's page. If you checked his Talk Page, 阿pp is from China and he is merely updating the scores for all the events that his countrymen is taking part in. As the events take place over time, the edit will increase after the addition of scores for each event. There is nothing wrong with this. Why are senior wikipedians here(User Zoglophie is also accusing me of massive edits) questioning us when we are making LEGIT edits and updating the Olympic 2020 records!?. You can double check our contributions. We are not vandals. We are doing out part to update the massive amount of results. I have barely started to do citations. There is so much work to do and we are being targeted here for doing many edits??
Secondly, I supported the removal of the politics section of the china page as Sports is Neutral. As 阿pp have said, those comments are not made by the chinese olympics delegation. I have also checked other countries page and there are no such section either. I did find many controversies(with regards to Tokyo 2020 Olympics) in the Page which I linked previously which I believed(and still do) that it's a better section to report the news that is mentioned for the politics part, hence my recommendation.(Disclaimer: I am also not from China. I am from a neutral 3rd country here so please don't think I am supporting 阿pp cuz we are from the same country)
Thirdly, yes the semi-protection did prevented me from updating scores and citation for China's page. but I gotten auto-confirmed rights yesterday to edit semi-protected articles so this is no longer an issue. But this was annoying though previously cuz i update olympic data according to the participants in the event so i go through all countries to update their pages from Rank 1 to the last ranked player. Luckily 阿pp is actively updating china's page or else I have to note down and round about back to re-updated the scores for china again after a few days.
Just FYI edits need to be sourced when they are made, reviewing both of your edit histories it seems that you both regularly make changes and additions without citing a source. Thats generally discouraged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i am aware of wikipedia's citation requirement when inputting data. It is not forgotten but the quantity of data being added is staggering. Additionally, if you have checked most NOC olympics pages, nobody is inputting their scores with citation at the moment. However, I have and AM inputting the citations after the finals of a particular event is completed as best as I can.
I have also looked at your Edit Contributions. Instead of criticizing us here, perhaps you can help us to add the citations and update the olympic results too? Many events have ended and their official results can be cited and also needs to be archived. The inputted data also needs to be double-checked against the official results for consistency. There is so many things to do and yet you have not edited a single Tokyo Olympics 2020 article(besides this china page politics issue) but you are commenting here on the rest of our efforts for the olympics. Atom105 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you’re aware of our citation requirements and purposefully ignoring them in BLP contexts then you’re being actively disruptive, theres no excuse for that. Wikipedia is not a race, it is not news, and there is no deadline, slow down and do the bare minimum that is required of you per policy and guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to encourage participants of this discussion to base their arguments on Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than on personal opinions and attacks on other editors.
Specifically, 阿pp's ask to declare political aspects "off topic" instead of having the article reflect all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic is in clear contradiction to WP:NPOV, and their blanket deletion here of all such RS coverage has resulted in that article violating NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HaeB, can i have some clarification then with regards to updating wikipedia articles for the olympics. Is is NOT ALLOWED for us to update the scores/data first and then thereafter add in the Citations at a later date? I ask this because this is being done by many wikipedians(besides me) on each countries's NOC olympic page. Is everyone of us doing it wrong? or am I being singled out because i was the one who brought this up here? Atom105 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @HaeB:@Horse Eye's Back:I have just read and understood the viewpoint of all of you experienced editors(including the Teahouse editors). But I wish to do an addendum here that I am not lying when I say everyone is doing it. Please check the contributions pages for Japan, United States and Russia(ROC) as examples(FYI, The other countries pages are also the same). As a new wikipedian, my first exemplar will be to follow what other wikipedians here are doing. I have no idea that what they are doing(i.e. updating articles without citation) is incorrect. While I understand it now, I wish to add that I did all these with the best of intentions and no malice was intended nor did I intended to lie. Atom105 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention to the article name China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Are those Chinese diplomats complaining NBC or BBC at the Games? They are complaining about TV coverage. Are this page China at the 2020 Summer Olympics and other Nations page related to TV coverage at all? I assume most, if not all, WikiProject Olympics editors would agree that in this title China at the 2020 Summer Olympics, China clearly refers to the Chinese Olympic Delegation, the Athletes and the Chinese Olympic Committee, not the Chinese government, hence news related to Chinese diplomats belong to somewhere else. So prove me wrong.
@HaeB:, I see you are referring to this edit, I would like to refer to a earlier "blanket deletion" if I may quote you. The only one news item related to the Chinese delegation was deliberately removed, leaving only negative news towards the Chinese government. Is this what you called NPOV? Seriously? You think that editor has good faith?
Also, on the Manual of Style, it states that those "Nations at Games" pages are "articles describing the results obtained by the competitors of a specific National Olympic Committee (henceforth referred simply as "nation") at an edition of the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games. " Is that still not clear enough? --阿pp (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That was super weird. I added in a full proper reply and clicked publish yet somehow most of my message didn't get shown. So now have to rewrite what I tried to add in the first time. And copy my text before clicking publish.
My take was basically that there shouldn't be doubles standards here. Chinese diplomats also mentioned Simone Biles and what great sportsmanship she did. And also mocked on how American media uses a self serving weird medal table. Can we add that in or just narrowly focus only on the hostile diplomatic responses only? If so, the section can be endless and overwhelm the article with match outcomes and people outside the Olympic delegation. You cannot add every single topic just because it's related.
Otherwise why not add in a Politics section for all other countries too? Why not add in a politics section to America and talk about what their politicians said about Simone Biles? It's also very significant and relevant. But we don't because it overcrowds and takes away the original purpose of such articles. Which is to basically to track medals, the number of people in the delegation and a brief summary of the delegation.
If you want to write paragraghs about what Chinese diplomats say. Make a new dedicated article. Because this page is about the Chinese Olympic delegation..also fyi, WP:NPOV is pushing sensationalised info. "A win by Taiwan over China in badminton increased tensions between the two countries.?? - That press release made it seem like the whole country had issues with Taiwanese badminton players. But they were talking only about Chinese trolls. Not government officials or even the majority of people in China for trolling those Taiwanese badminton players after that one match. It would be grossly unbalanced to claim that a handful of Chinese trolls is the whole country. 49.180.228.204 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with the anonymous editor above. A section about politics, controversies, criticisms and reception in the respective country could be added to the pages - but it probably shouldn't. See WP:CSECTION. There's the Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and most controversies and criticism should probably be directed there instead of on the individual countries' pages. The manual of style, while needing an update, is still what we should be following and there is no 'politics' section or anything like it on that. Kaffe42 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a serious misinterpretation of WP:CSECTION - it actually explicitly recommends "Reception" type sections, in direct contradiction to your claim.
And the fact that some outdated Wikiproject style page does not explicitly list a certain section title among its generic list of recommended (not: mandated) standard section does not at all allow us to violate core Wikipedia content policies, such as the requirement to reflect "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I was saying. Can you imagine putting a Politics section in America Olympic page and putting 4 large paragraphs on what politicians are saying about the issue on Simone Biles or what they say about transgender weightlifters? You don't put it in as the page is simply for the medal count, names of athletes and a short summary of the country. There has to be a universal standard or as another said, 'manual of style' for all class of wiki pages and not have double standards for one country.49.180.228.204 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If thats how its framed in the WP:RS then of course I would support putting a politics section on the America Olympic page as I would support it being added to any page if the coverage justified it. Your argument against double standards is a straw man, nobody here is arguing for one. Would you prefer that if the coverage is of just one sport that the information be included under that sport instead of a dedicated politics or responses section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HaeB: You mentioned twice "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Let's figure out what is the article's topic, and what can be included as significant views of that topic. My understanding is that the topic is about the delegation's performance and activities at the Games, and significant views of the topic might include: 1. Is the delegation performing well or bad? 2. Is there some activities against Olympic regulations going on? 3. Are some athletes doping? On the other hand, information like "China's officials or other personnel complain about another delegation" has more reason to fit in the said delegation's page as it's more related to their topic. For example, one removed item goes "A win by Taiwan over China in badminton increased tensions between the two countries. Tensions between China and Taiwan over the Olympics has also resulted in increased calls in Taiwan to rename their Olympic team." Yes, it reflects a significant view that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, but what topic exactly, the topic of the China page, or the topic of Taiwan Page, or the topic of Controversy Page? From the very beginning I have never said those items have source issues, all I said is that those are off topic on China page and they should belong to somewhere else. --阿pp (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also lastly, I don't see why you cannot just move the politics section in the china page to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. It seems like the ideal place already for those kinds of topics. China rejecting Taiwanese independence was never even new. Japanese politicians joking about the Holocaust or Republicans attacking Simone Biles. That's new yet not shown at all in the America or japaneae olympic 2020 page as the page isn't supposed to be focused on controversy by what diplomats have said for every issue during the games. That belongs to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics where controversial issues like Simone Bile, Chinese trolls, transgender weightlifters are already added there.49.180.228.204 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@49.180.228.204: If thats what people think is best then we can move it to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, I’m just not convinced that because we move the main home that we remove all mention of it from the country page. All major controversies and concerns related to a country and the olympics should still be summarized on their national pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back: I want to reiterate that the information or summary text provided on Nations page should be directly related to the delegation and athletes. Actions/reactions of other entities or persons that are neither part of the delegation nor being physically at the Games should not be part of the page. Please consider Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics as an acceptable practice of where the line draws between sports and politics on the Nations page. On the Belarus page, the summary of the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya incident strictly focuses on the actions/reactions of the team and the athlete at the Games, while further information like the asylum issue is provided with a link and is not event mentioned in the summary text. --阿pp (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t aware that we draw a line between sports and politics, how does one do that with the Olympics? Its an international political event at which athletic competitions occur. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assume you with good faith before, and I still don't. You said the Olympics is "an international political event at which athletic competitions occur". Seriously? --阿pp (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are required to assume good faith (see WP:AGF)... Are you saying that the Olympics is not a political event? I think in order to do that one would have to draw a line between politics and sport which as far as I can tell no theorist does... Its only the IOC and they are thoroughly panned for it[16]. The IOC is a political organization, what else would you call it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do think the Olympics is not a political event. I would call the IOC an NGO. Let's try to solve another question: Can we draw a line between on topic and off topic on China page? Where is that line? And also I would like to your opinion regarding the section just above this one, on the Overview section at United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics? Could you kindly share your opinion, my good faith editor? --阿pp (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All NGOs are political organizations, how does one address issues of the public good in a non-political manner? The very conception of the public good is a political one. Do you have any sources which support your assertion that the Olympics are non-political? That seems to be an odd argument to make when the base unit of the Olympics (nation) is a political one. If as you say the page is only for the delegation would you consider politics which involves the delegation to be off-topic? Given as the discussion above has been dormant since the fifth I don’t have anything to add, the OR/SYNTH seems to have been addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How could we determine something is off topic if we don't agree on what the topic is? Throughout the whole discussion I have stated many times that I believe the topic of Nations of Olympics page is about the delegation and the athletes, and I have quoted WP:OLYMOSNAT to support the point that, China in the article title China at the 2020 Summer Olympics refers to the delegation instead of the country or state in general. Everything directly related to the delegation should not be off topic, for example the mentioning of the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya incident on the Belarus page. I have also tried many times to ask the other side's opinion on what they think the topic of the page is. Unfortunately, I did not get a firm answer.
Regarding whether IOC and Olympics are political. I would like to refer to the Olympic Charter which advocates political neutrality. Also stated by the Olympic Charter: "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries. " "The NOCs have the exclusive authority for the representation of their respective countries." These can further prove that the topic of page should be the delegation, and the country's name in such pages' titles refer to their NOCs' representatives.
Last time I checked, on this wikipedia, sports categories are not sub-categories of political categories. For example, Category:2021 in sports does not belong to Category:2021 in politics, and they are both sub of Category:2021. Also you will not find Olympics or other sports events under Category:Political events. Maybe you are right that in fact it is hard to draw a line between politics and sports, but in practice on this wikipedia, there is indeed a practical line somewhere in between. --阿pp (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to be the one to tell you this but political neutrality is itself a political position, its a common misunderstanding. There is no “other” side, there are just other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expected you would say that, but I hated to see you actually say that. That is clearly sophistry. Based on your logic, even an apple or a watermelon is political because they are politically neutral. Do you think a politics section on watermelon is on topic? You always ignore part of my argument. That's pretty obscene. --阿pp (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apples and watermelons are fruit, they can not hold or express political opinions... As such they are not politically neutral. You appear to be confusing neutrality with not having a position. As for the last part I suggest you rephrase, you either don’t understand what obscene means or thats a WP:PERSONALATTACK which would be inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be confusing stating facts with personal attacks. You see, I can also reply to only part of your argument. This kind of practice is obscene and it does not help reaching consensus. --阿pp (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be kind enough to say which of the definitions of obscene you are using then? Most of them seem to imply heavy moral or ethical failings on the part of the person accused of doing said obscene actions which would most certainly fall under our general definition of personal attack... Note that actions are not arguments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a stretch, which moral principles? Also yes, saying that another editor’s actions are "offensive to moral principles" without providing some serious evidence and explanation is most likely a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have explained very clearly, if you believe otherwise, just go ahead make necessary actions against this usage. --阿pp (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How could a complaint made by a diplomat living in the US on NBC's TV coverage "pertain" to the Olympic delegation competing in Tokyo. Is this diplomat part of and working for the delegation? Is this diplomat going to lose his job after the Olympics? --阿pp (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really asking how a complaint made by a diplomat living in the US on NBC's TV coverage of the Olympic delegation from China competing in Tokyo pertains to the Olympic delegation from China competing in Tokyo? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you’re proposing that the pages be limited not just to information about the delegation but only to information about the sporting activities of members of the delegation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I have stated several times I am proposing that only information directly related to the delegation and the athletes shall be included. That diplomat's complaint is quite far away from "directly". China delegation at the Games (0) participated in the Opening Ceremony (1), the OC was broadcast by NBC (2), Chinese diplomat complaint on NBC coverage (3). I agree that media's report on the delegation and athletes themselves should be considered directly related. --阿pp (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Changing the Medals by sport table format
After a consensus was reached to include the Medals by sport table only for NOCs with more than 10 medals and at least 1 sport with more than 1 medal, I'd like to suggest a change to the table's format:
The new format uses less text and is sortable without using more of the page's width. In addition, the sports names are highlighted and aligned to the left for an easier read. Thoughts? Deancarmeli (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had though to try something like that but hadn't got around to it. The left align is a good idea and does bring things more in line with every other table on these pages. My only suggestion would be to get rid of that second line for the sorting buttons. Yes, it does make each column a bit wider, but only marginally so and looks less confusing. Also, I'd make the Sport and Total header cells the usual #efefef header cell color. Torlek (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea. But i would not bold the text when we use a "!", makes it look clumsy and fat. Now if we use the bold or the "!" is to each their own i guess, i like to go with the "!". Kante4 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this new format. I.e. The latest table just above User Fyunck's comments. It looks cleaner and more readable. There is no need to bold the sports categories(as shown). But as the tables tend to float by itself on the right hand side of the NOC pages normally, wouldn't it be better to encapsulate the Title "Medals by sport" inside the table? Atom105 (talk) 05:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atom105:: The title is a part of the table. See the |+ section. If you guys do prefer the version without highlighted sports names, I'll suggest this left version, that looks like the one above but with a slightly slimmer code, the the right one that is a bit fancier a version:
Yes the latest Left table looks good enough now. Understood that the title is still inside the table so I am fine with it. Also ok with the sorting buttons for users who wish to toggle and see their preferred results Atom105 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Venezuela at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Venezuela at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Would like some opinion on this page; another user has added quite a lot of information that I feel is unnecessary or best suited on the individual athletes pages. It makes the page very busy and hard to read. But I don't see anything in the manual of style about this. Chantella28 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The manual of styles do probably need updating, and I think we should start a discussion for that at some point after these Olympics and Paralympics, seeing how there's many discussions about formats, tables, etc. Regarding the Venezuela article, I can definitely see what you mean. The 'Athletics' section is very messy and in need of cleanup, but the descriptions themselves aren't that bad imo. They explain the content of the result tables, which is always ideal. There are some confusing paragraphs here and there, and some really weird formatting, but a cleanup should fix all that. If the intention of the "country at the xxxx olympics" pages are to only act as a list of results, nearly all of the written text on the Venezuela page should be removed. But if it's more of an overview of that country's performances in the games, I think the Venezuela page is a good example of how that could be done (keeping in mind that a cleanup is needed). In general I think it's pretty solid work from whoever is doing it. But this is definitely a topic open to discussion. Kaffe42 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's me. You could ping me since I come here sometimes (or just as a courtesy anyway). I've been working on the various Venezuela Olympic articles for a few years, actually, from first (1948) onward (but obviously it was easy/relevant to handle the current edition now). There aren't really any Olympic style guides, I checked before expanding the first one, but these articles are intended as complete overviews. If you look through the Good and Featured "COUNTRY at YEAR Olympics" articles, you will see they generally have much more text (per event) than I have included here. Also consider that if you only want results tables, well, the articles would be unnecessary, as they would merely duplicate information from the year's "EVENT at YEAR Olympics" articles. And it would be a list article, too, a different scope. The article's fine to have significant information (it could also be argued that excessive detail of one competition in a whole career would be excessive at the bios instead), having text has always been encouraged (even list articles like context); you're free to help improve the text if readability is your issue, but at the moment I've just been trying to get everything in there. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Total athletes
Hi all. Per the main article, 11,090 athletes are expected to compete. Doing a very quick count of the pages in Category:Competitors at the 2020 Summer Olympics, there are currently 9,617 athletes on WP for the 2020 Games, or about 87% coverage. I think the vast majority of "missing" articles simply aren't in their category. Big thanks to everyone who has being creating articles and adding the categories during the games. LugnutsFire Walk with Me19:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that 11,656 includes some team reserves (e.g. for athletics/swimming relay races), who didn't compete- and therefore won't necessarily be notable. Which means the true percentage will be more than 92%. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hoofjr has added OLY postnominals to names of a couple of Olympians e.g. Sky Brown. According to the article OLY, these are postnominals created by the World Olympians Association in 2017. My question is: should we be adding them to articles for Olympians? To me, they seem like a made up thing that isn't used in sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph2302 Thank you for bringing this up. Just to defend my actions, the OLY postnominals have been used on other Olympians which made me look into it further. After looking at some articles and seeing that some Olympians haven't got them on their profiles on wikipedia I started to add them. Also, they aren't made up as the official Olympic Committee sanctioned them to be used. I believe that all Olympians should get as much recognition as possible. Hoofjr (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoofjr:@Joseph2302:Caution. I did some research and find that although the WOA is endorsed by the IOC, the OLY postnominal is not an automatic certification. An Olympian (an athlete who took part in the Olympics) has to proactively apply for the OLY postnominal here. Therefore, The OLY postnominals on Olympians' pages require reliable sources to prove that the Olympian indeed applied for OLY and succeeded. Adding OLY to Sky Brown seems incorrect as I didn't find any source saying that she applied. --阿pp (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
阿pp Thank you for your input, just to clarify then. If there is evidence of the Olympian applying for OLY, then we can add it for them. Is that correct, if so I shall remove it for those I have added it to and just add it to those who I find who have applied?Hoofjr (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoofjr: Yes, as long as there are reliable sources to prove it, because it's the WOA that gives out OLY, not Wikipedia. We can't make things up. I just want to make sure that you and other fellow editors understand that an athlete does not automatically become an OLY by participating in the Games or winning Olympic Medals. --阿pp (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but adding them to the lead sentence of articles seems quite trivial. Most people with OBE's also don't have them attached to the lead. Sure it can be mentioned with a source in prose but not after their name in the lead. Someone mentioned it could be like PHD, but people like Albert Einstein don't have a PHD after their name. It's mentioned that it was awarded but it isn't a postnominal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marcell Jacobs sudden popularity led to too much confusion in the article
I created the article year ago and kept it until before the Olympics following the rules of Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics/Manual of Style/Biographies. Now I will arrange the article step by step according to the MOS of the project and detailing every single change in the "edit summary" of the article after each modification. But I'll go into more detail on my edits, explaining its, in this section.
On the Mexico at the 2020 Summer Olympics, a new "Olympic diplomas" was added on 6 August, after having been first posted on the talk page, but without soliciting or attracting any discussion. It has since been the subject of an edit war, which has removed and restored it several times. While I do not believe such sections exist on any other pages, but Olympic diploma does has its own page confirming the practice.
Question for discussion: Should the section be allowed in the article, even if not part of the typical "<country> in the <yyyy> <Summer/Winter> Olympics" article layout?
I want to remind everyone that "Olympic diplomas" are issued to all athletes finished 1st to 8th, including the medalists. In other words, they partially overlap with medalists, and the table added and removed on Mexico at the 2020 Summer Olympics contains only 4th (or 5th) to 8th, which is technically incorrect and incomplete. --阿pp (talk) 04:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on relevance. A country with a lot of medals will also have a lot of diplomas but may not care about them so much. A country with few/no medals will care, and their national media will report on the diplomas. In those cases, it may warrant a section with enough coverage, or passing mention after the medals if there's not a lot of coverage. Kingsif (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How to do mass edit of citations
Hi, I noticed a User from this project(Sahil0411)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sahil0411) adding citations as manual links to over 500+ edits of olympic 2020 articles. An example of his edit is at this Page I was just informed at Teahouse that this is not an appropriate way of citation. Is there a way to amend a group of this citations at the same time or must we manually go to every edit to re-edit and create the proper normal citations(i.e. [1])? Thanks! Atom105Talk13:49, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, calm down. There isn't a deadline and no one will die if the links stay a bit longer as bare links. I believe it can be done easier than manually with tools such as WP:AWB or even a bot, but I am not familiar at all with them to tell you how to do so. In general, WP:HELPDESK might be a better place to ask and get an anwer for such a question. --SuperJew (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Sorry for panicking cuz this is the first time I seen so many edits needing to be rework in such a short span of time(1 day). i'll take your advice and ask at the helpdesk instead. Thanks! Atom105Talk14:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was saying it's the first time he's seen so many added in 1 day. And that they need to be reverted. For my advice, well, since there don't need to be references in tables, just hit revert on Suhail's edits. No need to format changes. Kingsif (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: Why doesn't the table need references? Without references it is unreferenced information (as it is on most of these "Nation at the 2020 Summer Olympics" pages). --SuperJew (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its because the Citation Style is incorrect as a User said at the Teahouse link. and with so many edits we need to re-work them into the proper citation. And yes i meant what kingsif said about so many added in 1 day. Atom105Talk14:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a bit more: tables need referencing, but I said references don't need to be in tables - indeed, they should not be in the tables if it can be prevented. That's the style guideline. The cite refs should be in prose, or before/after the table if no prose is relevant. If a small table, put it with text in the caption. If you've exhausted these options and there's still need, and it's a table that can't have a ref column, only then do you put a ref in a table cell with data. Since Atom105 asked how to convert the hyperlinks to inline cites but was uncertain, I wanted to make it clear to him that we do not want a messy table with cite refs everywhere. Kingsif (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better than no refs for sure. I think in this case, since there's a lot of refs and they apply to more than just that column, it would be better to use prose. Also because the data in the table is not immediately clear to a non-expert (like me; there's not even a key for the different kinds of DQ). I'd compare those sailing tables to the first BMX one here; instead of adding multiple cites next to one of the headers, there are sentences later (much later, but that's prose about the event, not the results) saying In seeding on 31 July, Dhers went fourth and placed third with an average 85.10 run, meaning he would perform third-last in the final ... He won the silver medal behind Australian Logan Martin in the final on 1 August., with the relevant cites next to the text. The information is cited, the tables are now illustration tools used to support the prose. There's a MOS for tables somewhere you could look for. For your sailing specifically, I think the following would be useful/necessary to interpret the table: a key explaining the different types of disqualification and what M* (medal race?) and EL (eliminated?) are (not prose - and you could use the Template:abbr for M* and EL without mentioning in key if my guesses are correct); some prose explaining how the net points relate to race positions; prose explaining which results are discarded; prose on why some events don't have 12 races. This information will presumably be in the refs already present or at the event articles. Also good to have would be some summaries of each race. Kingsif (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added illustrated example: each table here would need at least three cites, for different bits of information - but they are small, and some of that information needs a more complete explanation, so prose helps. Kingsif (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let the listed projects know what is being discussed. There will probably be a formal RfC on the article where more can speak their minds and it's always good to have more viewpoints. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could follow the policy that exists. Sounds like a bad change you want personally, know is unpopular, and hope to canvas support for; the only WikiProjects of the many tagged on the article talk that you've notified are here and Athletics, i.e. the projects that deal most with Jenner's previous male-identified career. Not the current relevant ones like LGBT and TV. Your selectivity reveals you. Cut it out. Kingsif (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on the talk page there are only two projects listed, and I informed both of them of the discussion. So take your accusations and blow them out your porthole. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you blind or somehow hope everyone else is? Talk:Caitlyn Jenner There are nine projects listed, and five taskforces, too. Take your controversy-baiting and GTFO. Your edit deals with her, you titled this section after her, so you know to go to the relevant projects about her if you actually care. Kingsif (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you mental or just egging for a fight? The article in question had two projects. No one is arguing about changing the Caitlyn Jenner article. I never looked at it since this was an Olympic article issue. Stop your personal attacks and find someone else to make disparaging remarks about. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Booted out" is just sensationalist phrasing of the fact that she did not advance. I've rephrased the description of the 200 heat to better reflect an NPOV (as well as provide additional detail). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't "booted out", they failed to qualify for the final. "Booted out" would imply they were removed by force from the Games (by their National Committee or the IOC), which isn't the case here. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that not all of the teams that participate in the Olympic games are also nations (ROC, EOR, and GBR, for example), what do we think about recommending that the term "team" or "NOC" (or some other fully inclusive term) be used rather than using the non-inclusive and imprecise term "nation" in Olympic-related articles?
I prefer "team", but I noticed that Sportsfan 1234chose "NOC", but either way, I am struggling with the validity of "nation". I realise too that "nation" can be appropriate when a nation team is being discussed - such as "Japan as the home nation" - but as a team column header or the generic "all nations competing..." it is controversial. Can we explore this please. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, because: a) "Great Britain" isn't the name of any nation, the major nation represented by that team is the "United Kingdom" and b) that team also represents athletes from dependencies and overseas territories which are not part of the United Kingdom.
But I think we agree that is all irrelevant to this discussion anyway. What do you think about the use of the term "nation" to refer to non-nations? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto: a) From United Kingdom: This article is about the country. It is not to be confused with Great Britain, its largest island whose name is also loosely applied to the whole country. and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign country. b) Interesting point, but they are definately a minority, and still the athletes from there are representing the nation as (afaik) they have British citizenship. --SuperJew (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, yes, your quotes for a) confirm what I wrote: the article about the country is called "United Kingdom" and not "Great Britain", "it is not to be confused with Great Britain, its largest island...", "Great Britain is also loosely applied to the whole country" (loosely: i.e. wrongly), "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign country" (no mention of "Great Britain" there. In a nutshell, the nation's name is the United Kingdom and one of its islands is called Great Britain. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion arises from the fact that "Great Britain" is the island of England/Wales/Scotland, but "Britain" (without the "Great" bit) is often used to refer to the United Kingdom (UK) as a whole. The UK's team is called Team GB, which of course snubs the Northern Ireland contingent. "Team Britain" might be OK though... Rodney Baggins (talk) 13:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevantly to the name "Great Britain", which is used sometimes to refer to all of the United Kingdom, from the page Great Britain at the 2020 Summer OlympicsGreat Britain, or in full Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the team of the British Olympic Association (BOA), which represents the United Kingdom, from British Olympic AssociationThe British Olympic Association (BOA) is the National Olympic Committee for the United Kingdom. It is responsible for organising and overseeing the participation of athletes from the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team, and from Great Britain at the OlympicsTeam GB is organised by the British Olympic Association (BOA) as the National Olympic Committee for the UK. While the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and BOA both refer to the team as 'Great Britain' and the team uses the brand name Team GB, the BOA explains that it is a contraction of the full title, the Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team. Point is that even if the name might not be the most technically correct, Team GB represents the nation of the United Kingdom / Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is different to the Refugee Olympic Team which indeed doesn't represent one nation. --SuperJew (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SuperJew, it's used as the team name, yes, but it is not the name of the nation, which is why I included it as an example where the team name is not the same as the nation name. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're just saying that the common name used by the event organizers and the press in the context is the "wrong" name, which, sure, but irrelevant. "Great Britain" is how this nation is referred to in the Olympic context. The nation here includes the people of the UK, the Crown Dependencies, and 11 of the 14 British Overseas Territories (obviously a mouthful that needs shortening somehow). The IOC decides who is a "nation" through certifying National Olympic Committees; usage determines what that nation gets called. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonel, no I'm not saying that, I'm saying that "nation" doesn't adequately describe all the entities that it is used to cover in our Olympic related articles, and gave what I thought were three examples of where it fails. You may disagree with one (or more?) of my examples, but this is not about that, it's about the choice of the word "nation" when there might be other more precise and more inclusive words that could be used. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except "nation" does adequately describe essentially all (the Refugee team is really the only current exception) the entities. There is a nation consisting of the people of the UK (as well its dependencies and most territories), represented by a National Olympic Committee and which we call Great Britain in the Olympic context. There is a nation consisting of the people of Puerto Rico, represented by a National Olympic Committee and which we call Puerto Rico. There is a nation consisting of the people of Russia, represented by a National Olympic Committee and which we call the ROC for 2020. These are all nations, regardless of whether they are coextensive with sovereign states. There is no other term I have seen that is more precise and more inclusive; "team" is wildly imprecise (and "delegation" and "mission" are perhaps even worse on that score), "National Olympic Committee" or its abbreviation "NOC" is mostly precise but not more inclusive as it does not deal with the Refugee team any better to my understanding (and contains "nation" in it, anyway). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the use of "nation" for non-nations, such as the Refugees team, I think it is technically not correct, but in actuality non-nations are a minority and an exception from the norm as well as the meaning being clear to everyone and therefore not a major issue worth wasting too much time and energy over. --SuperJew (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think NOC is a much better term, and I personally think that should be used instead of 'nation' or 'team'. As already said, not all NOCs are actually nations, and some "nations" don't really fit the term either. Team is a good alternative, but could be misleading in some cases, since there are Olympic sports and disciplines using teams - ie. handball, volleyball, relay, pursuit, etc. It would probably be fine in most cases, but I can definitely see cases where it could cause unnecessary confusion. "The team stood with two handball teams" sounds weird, for example. Another option is 'delegation', which wouldn't be confusing but only really refers to the people at the Olympics, and not the participating country/NOC as a whole. Kaffe42 (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is like that since the very beginning years of the Games: some teams were not even indipendent nations when they first participate (Grand-Duchy of Finland in 1912, Hungary before WWI) some nowadays are not nations like HKG or EOR, or United Team in 1992. ROC is not a nation but a sanction of WADA.--Arorae (talk) 11:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arorae, what term do you think should be used to collectively refer to all these different types of entities then? "NOCs", "teams", or something else? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:38, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Nation" means a community of people and is a distinct term from sovereign state or country. It's a perfectly acceptable shortening of National Olympic Committee. An abbreviation such as "NOC" is reader-unfriendly. "Team" causes confusion with other meanings of team. "Great Britain" represents the people of the United Kingdom, its dependencies, and (most) overseas territories--that's a nation, no matter if the name (for historical reasons) is perhaps misleading. "ROC" represents the people of Russia--that's a nation, even if the sanctions are awkward. Sure, the Refugee Team stretches the concept of a community, but it's not worth throwing nomenclature that generally works well for a few minor exceptions. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: There are currently 206 NOCs and they are all listed in the table in 2020 Summer Olympics. EOR and ROC are each included in this list as one of the 206. I'm not too concerned about ROC because that literally stands for "Russian Olympic Committee" – even though we're not using the word "Russian" at the moment, it's effectively Russia's NOC. The one that's been causing a slight disagreement between myself and Arorae is the refugee team, EOR, which is clearly one of the 206 NOCs listed. Calling it a NOC is a slight misnomer, because the refugee team does not have its own national identity and doesn't physically have its own national committee. I suppose we could say that the IOC itself has taken responsibility and is effectively the refugee team's surrogate Olympic committee. In any case, it has its own IOC code (EOR) and is included as one of the magic "206". So for the purposes of including it in the list, it's treated as a NOC even though it's strictly made up of athletes "borrowed" from other NOCs. (It's also included in the nations category of course.)
As for terminology, I'd be happy to call them "participating teams". If we use the term "NOC" we must remember that it stands for National Olympic Committee, a "national" constituent of the worldwide Olympic movement, so we're back to the problem of including teams that aren't actually a nation, in particular EOR. So if we call them NOCs we probably have to add in a confusing proviso like the one I removed in this edit (and it went on to mention 206 NOCs in parenthesis anyway, huh?) @Kaffe42: I get what you're saying about teams already being used in terms of team events but as long as we try to stick to using the term participating teams then I don't really see an issue. Rodney Baggins (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think readers are going to be very confused if we have tables with the heading "participating team" (e.g. Rank, Athlete, Participating Team, Time)--they will have no idea what that means. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 14:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to quote some from the Olympic Charter. "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries . They bring together the athletes selected by their respective NOCs." "The NOCs have the exclusive authority for the representation of their respective countries." "NOCs have the right to... send competitors, team officials and other team personnel to the Olympic Games in compliance with the Olympic Charter." In short, an NOC sends athletes representing its country to the Games. (The ROC logic is that Russia is banned by WADA while ROC is not banned by IOC, therefore ROC can still send athletes but they just cannot represent the country due to the ban.) Based on these, "NOC" seems not a good term referring the team, "country/nation" might be OK for what the athletes are representing. For teams like ROC, and for teams like EOR, "team" or "delegation" or even "mission" (from Chef de Mission) could be considered. --阿pp (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
South Africa, because that's where the sources put him. It really does not matter that South Africa was not yet independent; having a sovereign state was not a requirement for the IOC to recognize a nation throughout most of its history. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have never read such nonsense reply. Len Tau did not represent RSA, on the official report they wrote ZULU (he was not) and he was considered as a British citizen. NOC of RSA was not even created in 1908 for their first team at Games (without any Black or Coloured). SANOC had only White athletes (from 1908 to 1992).--Arorae (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
and what about the Unified Team at the 1992 Summer Olympics ? A Nation or 12 Nations? It was a joint team consisting of twelve of the fifteen former Soviet Union republics that chose to compete together. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania competed separately. The team has been informally called the Commonwealth of Independent Statesteam, though Georgia was not yet a member of the CIS when it competed as part of the Unified Team. It competed under the IOC country code EUN (from the French Équipe unifiée).--Arorae (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For that year, they were 1 nation consisting of the people of those 12 republics. For later years, 12 nations. Completely fine. (And odd edge cases should not determine how we deal with the vast majority of instances.) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 18:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jonel, that would require a novel definition of the word "nation" though as it does not comply with any of the standard English definitions. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"A large group of people having a common origin, language, and tradition and usu. constituting a political entity." Seems pretty easy to cover it within that definition, especially given the transitional status between the Soviet and post-Soviet eras for those people. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 20:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am indifferent to any of the terms, but NOC or teams would avoid any confusion because it is a neutral term.
Jonel, you might think it's a good fit for that disparate group of people. I wonder if they would - what with the mix of races, ethnicities, mother-tongues, religions, traditions and histories involved - I find it hard to imagine a worse fit! How well do you think it fits the IRL team? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are we objecting to them being part of one nation in 1988? That's why we don't decide who constitutes a nation for Olympic purposes--the Olympic organizers do so through implementation of National Olympic Committees that provide for which people are eligible for that nation. (And, again, we have hundreds of nations at the Olympics—even if you disagree on this one, one or two edge cases each cycle should not invalidate that the terminology works just fine for the vast majority.) Ireland is an example of why "nation" is a good term here: the OFI represents the people of the island of Ireland while the BOA represents the people of the United Kingdom (etc.). It's perfectly fine to recognize those as distinct nations despite the overlap. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @Arorae:. I think you might have misinterpreted my words. My opinion is that as long as an athlete competes representing a nation or country, even though the term nation or country itself might be technically incorrect, the term nation or country could be used, as the IOC did in Olympic Charter. Regarding Len Taunyane, I agree with @Jonel:. This kind of things actually are very common when the current-era IOC tries to standardize history records decades ago, what I mean is that an NOC inherits the records of its country's previous political entity. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am saying that it is what the IOC is doing. Another example is Liu Changchun, was he competing for CHN, or TPE, or the arguably defunct Republic of China, in 1932? --阿pp (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to ask why was the manual of style for NOC articles removed on the project page. The NOC articles at the recently concluded Olympics become so inconsistent and unexpectedly different with the results format, particularly on the references affixed in the rankings. I have received so many complaints from various Wikipedia users on my talk page about the removal of references, reverting of my edits that endanger my status on Wikipedia, and other issues, especially Sportsfan 1234 and PhilKnight, both of whom wanted to block my account.
What rules should we have to implement for the NOC articles? I don't understand your intentions to revert my edits, especially when I commit various corrections on the results for them. I AM SO SICK AND TIRED OF EDIT WARS. This has never happened before. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very confused by this request. First of all, it's not an article, it's a Wikipedia project guideline (it's in Wikipedia space, not article space). Secondly, Sportsfan 1234 has never edited this page, so I don't why you'd think they want to edit it, Raymarcbadz, yet alone "manage" it? Also, we don't have owners or managers, as this is Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and no-one owns. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Given that OP here was just recently blocked and then unblocked for the exact same thing that happened here, I think its likely further steps need to be taken. Maybe a topic ban from anything related to modern Olympics? Though this should then be moved to ANI for broader input.@PhilKnight and HighInBC:: previously involved admins... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no problems, the OP continued to mass remove references using WP:OLYMOSNAT as an excuse. However, there is no where in WP:OLYMOSNAT that says removing references is allowed. I too think perhaps a topic ban on the OP is needed as they continue to demonstrate WP:OWN. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, you have no problems? So you prove me that I'm wrong at all? You might agree that WP:OLYMOSNAT should be removed, since you encourage other users to have a different table formats of all sections in various NOC articles? And what's the meaning of OP? I think the WP:OLYMOSNAT require a massive restructure of rules because of our issue between me and Sportsfan 1234. Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymarcbadz: From your replies, you have this misconception that style guide overwrite WP:VERIFY which isn't true. The style guide is there to ensure the styling are consistent however it does not overwrite WP:VERIFY. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)05:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@阿pp you are missing a big part of the picture here. The OP insisted on removing references from articles and in general having WP:OWN issues on X at the Summer Olympics pages. As far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong, adding an external link (reference) in a table isn't against any sort of guidelines here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@阿pp Yes I agreed that the citations was changed from correct to incorrect, didn't know about that, it's good that you pointed it out. I don't think there is any missing part.
@Sportsfan 1234 You changed from correctly styled citations to external links instead, please see WP:CITING if you're unsure how to cite correctly. Your changes should be wrapped inside the <ref>your citations goes inside here</ref>, in addition, citations commonly uses the {{Cite web}} template (I'm just mentioning the commonly used citation template, there are few more variants) rather than bare references which your changes is applying. At the same time, I'm don't think Raymarcbadz has been removing any reference after he was unblocked for removing huge chunk of citations but he is rather trying to correct them while having some misconception that style guide overwrite WP:VERIFY.
@Raymarcbadz If your intention is to remove the incorrectly styled citations, I would suggest that you correct the citations instead else there would be misunderstanding that you haven't learn from the blocking. —Paper9oll(🔔 • 📝)14:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some thoughts:
WP:OLYMOSNAT needs an update. It currently does not have any guidance on references.
The tables need references, like everything else.
Bare links aren't great, but are better than nothing (should not be removed unless there's a problem with the reference itself) and the correct response is to format them in proper citation style (as Paper9oll describes above). References should be references, not linked in inline text or data. (I'm not weighing in at all on who has done what, just setting forth the principle.)
The general MOS:TABLES does not seem to have a lot to say about references, but does note that row and column headers "are often suitable places for reference citations".
What level should we have the references at? Results books for the entire sport (e.g. archery), with a reference in a table caption? Individual match results? (The South Korea article currently has multiple references in each column header with links to individual match results, resulting in 19 footnotes with 35 total references for just archery--which seems excessive, given that all of that information is in the one results book).
I agree that WP:OLYMOSNAT needs updates in many aspects. Just look through the sections above this one on this talk page, there are discussions about whether an overview section is ok, whether a politics section is ok, or if certain tables of medal should be removed. Lots of editors stated similar arguments like "It's not in WP:OLYMOSNAT so it'd better be removed until reaching consensus."
Regarding citations, the China page is currently using Results Books, and ref codes are put in event cells in result tables. I think it is reasonable and appropriate, and it also looks clear. --阿pp (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There has been several waves of editors (including myself) editing and keeping an eye on the medals/participation tables of all the "NOC at the Olympics" articles over the years. I mentioned earlier, though no one responded, that a project should be launched to bring each and every participation table to a single unified format which has emerged as the default over the years. I would love some assistance with this, as it's lots and lots of articles, obviously. There's thankfully a lot less work now, it shouldn't be too difficult to find the NOCs with non-standard tables and fix those.
As a second part of this, each infobox should also be audited to make sure the years of participation match the appearances tables, plus take into account all the applicable variations.
Finally, I believe we may have a handful of historic NOCs that may need new pages such as Malaya, which is not, to my knowledge, combined with Malaysia by the IOC. And hopefully we can finally put to rest the Yugoslavia/Serbia debate. As an aside, since Russia's ROC will now appear as ROC at least twice, I believe we should have a separate Russian Olympic Committee at the Olympics article to chronicle their 2020 and 2022 appearances.
Ultimately, all of the NOC at the Olympics articles should a) 100% match our All-Time medals list and b) the IOC records.Jmj713 (talk)
@Jmj713:, I would be happy to assist you regarding the standardization of the tables. However, an consensus must first be reached regarding the structure of the tables. Because for example, in my opinion, NOCs that have not won medals do not need such a table, and there are other ways to show the number of athletes who participated in each Olympics. In my opinion, it seems very unprofessional and even ridiculous that there are a large number of NOCs with long tables that show that the country did not win a medal in a section called "Medal tables".
Regarding the infobox. I think the years of participation identical to the tables in most of the article and if there is an individual case that you have identified, it is advisable to contact Primefac. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree that perhaps renaming the section to something like "Overview of Olympic participation" might be better, but I am 100% behind the idea that the entire history of a NOC's participation should be shown as we do now. For many athletes and countries simply making an appearance is a huge deal. Jmj713 (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as standardization, I would propose that we use the current format as the unified standard, such as can be seen at Azerbaijan at the Olympics, for example. It should contain:
) every Games the NOC appeared in, the number of athletes (linked to that NOC's year at the Olympics), medals won if any, total medals, and rank (linked to that year's medal table; rank should only be by gold, not overall as I have seen some countries add, such as the United States);
) there should not be separate columns for sports/events;
) the formatting should be unified and identical (same colors, font-size, hosting highlight);
) the spanned text should be italicized and I believe should not be capitalized;
) if a NOC did not participate for more than 3 consecutive Games, that row should be collapsed and the absence between games shown with two dates and an en-dash;
) if a NOC previously was part of another NOC (such as Azerbaijan part of the Soviet Union), that participation should also be noted and the row spanned;
) participation under different names/NOCs should strictly follow IOC records, so, for example Rhodesia and Zimbabwe should be combined, and post-breakup Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro, while pre-Civil War Republic of China is not combined with Chinese Taipei or China;
) the only bolding of numbers within the table should be the totals (should not bold highest amounts of medals or athletes);
) all-time (total) rank should be verified with the ranked All-Time table.
I am not saying not to mention the fact that they appear. I just think there are much better ways to point this out. From paragraphs summarizing the participation of the delegation according to the Olympics to tables that deal with the participation of athletes by sports and make it possible to see trends according to the sports or discipline.
I agree with the clauses you wrote. But I think there should be a clause that deals with Olympics where the NOCs doesn't win medals. While if it is a single Olympics - there is reason to note and show that in that year the NOC didn't win medals. However in the opposite cases where winning a medal is unique, producing huge tables that are supposed to sum up something and most of them present the value "0", in my opinion is not the way to do so. Just as in the case of actors we will present the awards he won and was nominated but we will not mention in the table also awards from previous years to which he was not nominated but appeared in the initial list.Nimrodbr (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I suggested renaming the section to something along the lines of "Overview of Olympic participation" because that's what these tables represent, in my opinion. I care most about chronicling NOC participation, and medals to me is secondary. I do understand your view, but I feel it's unfair to the smaller countries who are unlikely to win any medals. But it also presents an issue for, say Monaco at the Olympics, which has never won a medal but participated since 1920. If we were to remove this table and then finally Monaco won a medal in 2024, we would have to recreate it. I don't see the point. Hopefully, eventually, every NOC will win at least one medal. But again, I would like to stress that to me personally, participation, even by a NOC with a single athlete who finished last, needs to have their participation shown and recorded. The table also provides a very quick and easy way to review a NOC's overall participation at a glance, while if we were to move this information to prose, that would be too cumbersome to analyze quickly. Jmj713 (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Take Israel at the Olympics for example. There is a separation between medals and participation. In my opinion in the medals section is not necessary to mention the Olympics before Barcelona 1992 but it makes sense to mention London 2012. Since before Barcelona the NOC did not win medals and London is the only Olympics after that the delegation did not win medals. This is possible in my opinion since the participation of the delegations is presented in more detail in the "Olympic participants" section. Of course it is also possible to produce a standardization for this part with it should look as it appears in Israel article or in the style of the medals table but with pictograms. Nimrodbr (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I find that participation by sport table pretty confusing. I'm much less interested in specific sports, because that will balloon any table. The purpose of these NOC at the Olympics tables is to be a very compact and concise snapshot of the entire history of that NOC, because the article isn't "Olympic medals won by NOC", but "NOC at the Olympics" so it makes sense we chronicle their full history. If you remove Israel's participation prior to 1992, many people who aren't as familiar will land on this table and believe that Israel's debut at the Olympics was in 1992. This is also completely missing their Winter Olympics participation. Jmj713 (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with renaming the section to reflect participation rather than medals. Think that all years participated should be included, even if that means a lot of 0 medal cells. Would including the flagbearer in this table be helpful? Flagbearers are often floating around in another table somewhere on these pages; including them here would help consolidate the page somewhat, address the table being heavily 0ed for some countries, and reflect the participation concept, as the flagbearer is an important symbol of that. Would not include the flagbearer's sport, as done in some tables. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could try and see what it looks like with a sample of a NOC that has had substantial participation. My fear would be that it will look too busy. Another side effect would be that tables won't look very standard as names of different lengths will expand or shrink the overall width or height, if there are two names (a minor issue, sure, but still a visual inconsistency). I also think another stipulation to make is to have the participation table be as the leading section of the article. Sometimes there will be preceding historical sections and they push it down the page, but it shouldn't take much scrolling to get to it, as it's sort of an overview, and the other issues are expanded upon below. Jmj713 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2020 switch to two flagbearers does kind of cause an issue. I wouldn't be as concerned about the varying width if each year stayed on its own line, but with the summer/winter side-by-side, it looks like there might be issues with some nations whose people have longer names. Maybe this doesn't work. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:19, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think that really doesn't work, the flagbearers are fine in a separate table. Another point of formatting I'd like to bring up is that Summer and Winter tables should be placed in a double column. Unless there are some accessibility issues I'm unaware of, I think it's best when they're seen side by side as opposed to one under another. Jmj713 (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Every single country’s Olympic pages (and Mexico’s previous Olympic years) follow the same outline and none of them include “Olympic Diplomas”. This including this section for “Mexico at the 2020 Summer Olympics” seems superfluous and not in tune with every single Olympic page on Wikipedia. Plus, they already have the rankings for each sport below which makes the diploma table unnecessary. If someone wants to add a asterisk and footnote saying 4-8 get diplomas, then that would make more sense and the wiki page could be more in tune with all the other Olympic pages
Resolved
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § The next Olympics: Appropriate article target(s) for ongoing items and other questions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
Resolved
![[10]](https://res.cloudinary.com/duu3v9gfg/image/fetch/t_fit_1920/https://78884ca60822a34fb0e6-082b8fd5551e97bc65e327988b444396.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/up/2021/07/FRA-04-1627733510-1627733510.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://res.cloudinary.com/duu3v9gfg/image/fetch/t_w_640_auto/https://78884ca60822a34fb0e6-082b8fd5551e97bc65e327988b444396.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/up/2021/07/cysique-1627733906-1627733906.jpg){kind=link}