Talk:2008 Summer Olympics medal table

Gold-centric

Since when are statistics organized as gold first? This goes against common sense and tradition. Does the following make sense?

Template:Olympic Medal header Template:Olympic Medal team Template:Olympic Medal team Template:Olympic Medal team Template:Olympic Medal footer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.240.244.118 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-10T09:30:12Z

(1) Gold first is the tradition.

(2) By clicking on the symbol next to "Rank, "Nation", "Silver", "Total" etc. you can organize the list according to your preference.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-10T12:35:06Z

In that case, why bother calling it the "medal count"? The name itself seems to imply that teams will be arranged, first, by number of medals won. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Medal count" can imply gold medal counts, silver medal counts, or total medal counts. As mentioned, gold first is the tradition. But if you like to view the table according to total medals, you can always sort it (click the arrow button next to the "Total" title). Heilme (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you mean gold medals first, that's what should be said. Placing golds before even the overall count can lead to a situation, as shown above, where a team that has won significantly more medals finishes lower in the count. You can justify that stupidity all you want...you can even say, "Well, you can sort it a different way if you want to"...but that doesn't change the default setting nor the stupidity thereof. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant that it is not the tradition to ignore the total medal count in favor of the gold total count--as shown in his example. Of course, golds are listed first--i.e. in the leftmost column. However, the entire list is sorted by descending order of total medals by default--as on this site: http://www.nbcolympics.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.139.116.178 (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

NBC is sorting by total. The ICO/Beijing site is sorting by total golds as they always do. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 00:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see any problems at all with the way the table is compiled at this point. One person says "gold-centric", then another shouts "total-medal-centric"...you cannot make everyone happy at the same time. NBC listed according to the total, while the International Olympics Committee website listed by the golds. Let's not make a big deal out of this. The purpose of the SORT function in the table is meant to solve this issue. So, use it. Heilme (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Or, if your issue is with the country ranking # which reflects only the gold medal counts now, then I suggest you modify it at your own will. Perhaps, a different ranking #s for each counting system. But this will be messy. Heilme (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, the medal count that is most often referred to is total medals. That is what China, for example wants, they want to "beat the US in the total medal count". the example given above illustrates this very well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't even bother arguing your point, as valid as it is. It's clear that to some people who edit Wikipedia, tradition is allowed to trump logic. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It probably makes since to arrange by total medals, but unless Mr. Rogge changes it, it will be ordered by the way the IOC does it. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 06:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you know this, but just in case, this is Wikipedia -- not the IOC. Wikipedia editors have the prerogative to make the page in a way that reflects most-common usage. The majority of news websites give gross medal count. The vast majority of commentators list the gross medal count of past Olympics and speak of the current battle for the gross number of medals. I'll state a bit of OR here, but I'd guess most Olympic fans consider the gross count as equivalent to the "Olympics medal count". So, I'm afraid that even though your argument of what Rogge and the IOC uses is valid, it does not does over rule Wikipedia in any such simplistic manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me common usage. The first place I went was to the BBC and they had it arranged by golds. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 07:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I've never, _ever_ seen it organized by total medal count. Must be a by-countryn thing. Offical IO listings always are gold first. Of course, it has its drawbacks, but for a really "fair" ordering, you'd probably need to assign weights to the different medals. After all, is it better to have 5 silver, or 8 bronze medals? Gold first has always been the traditional way of ordering, and until a generally accepted better sorting surfaces, it should stay gold first.--Flosch (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"Regardless, the medal count that is most often referred to is total medals." Not the case. Bragging rights always go to the country with the most golds. Often this is also the country with the most medals - but if we're just going to count all medals as having equal value, what's the point of having first, second and third? How is that logical? (194.110.194.1 (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)).

So what you're saying is, even if the country with the most medals were to win, let's say, 30 more than the country with the most golds, the latter would have bragging rights? "We got 89 total medals, including 38 golds" speaks of a better Olympic Games than "We got 119 total medals, including 37 golds"? Be serious. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That is serious. Most people would regard a nation who won 37 golds to have "beaten" a nation who won 36 golds in the Olympics, regardless of how many times the latter nation won a runner's-up medal. That's the way the International Olympic Committee count the medals. That's also the way the BBC, The Times, The Telegraph, The Guardian and pretty much every other news source I've ever seen counts the medals.86.157.9.214 (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See my point below re: Russia v. Thailand. If you consider a country that had won six medals (as of that comment) to be having a less successful Olympics than a country with only one, based solely on the color of the single medal, then that's your affair. But you're still wrong. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen your example of Russia and Thailand, and I would consider that a single gold beats any number of silvers and bronzes in the same way as I would consider winning the FA Cup or the Superbowl to be a bigger achievement than being the runner up three years running (from a purely results-driven point of view). As the late great Ayrton Senna is claimed to have said, "I race to win. Second place is nothing". If you think that I'm wrong and I think that you're wrong, maybe we should start looking at what the major news sources from practically every country on Earth considers to be the conventional way of ranking the nations, and the way that the IOC sorts the medal table.86.132.185.178 (talk) 07:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The FA Cup and the Super Bowl aren't exactly parallel cases, though, are they? There you have one single team prize to be given, in one event, staged in one country, and a multitude of teams pursuing it. Here, you have multiple prizes to be won PER EVENT, multiple events, and a multitude of athletes and teams pursing the top prize in each one, not only for their own glory but the glory of their homeland. I grant you that the prizes are graded from most to least prestigious, and I further grant you that nobody goes to the Olympics aiming for a silver medal if they think there is even a slight chance for them to take the gold. But there are enough differences between the types of competition and the prizes awarded that your analogy fails at the most basic level. Perhaps you need to examine your thought process instead of urging me to examine the opinions of others -- opinions which I have already rejected ad nauseam for reasons which I have explained over and over again. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Each member of the FA Cup final's losing team gets a runners up medal. And I didn't ask you to reconsider my opinions. I suggested that if we disagree here (and we clearly do), we should follow the common usage of the IOC and almost every major news source in every country in the world.212.124.225.66 (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that settles it!, obviously only the British report news on this planet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), China Daily, Daily Globe (Canada), Radio 24 (Italy), The Australian -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 00:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

English Wikipedia, therefore you should be quoting only English references to look for common usage. So perhaps Commonwealth countries prefer a gold-centric, and the United States prefers medal-centric? Regardless, it certainly looks funny to see Thailand in 12th with one gold medal, but Russia in 16th with seven medals. Saying that golds define who 'wins', is as stupid as the argument that any country somehow wins the Olympics. This gold-centric medal counting does nothing more than to belittle those athletes who received silver and bronze medals... so CONGRATS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 02:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not going to change. Deal with it. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Now that's what I like to see -- a well-reasoned argument. "Deal with it." Why did I ever doubt? </sarcasm> --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The "argument" has been made for years. Yes, it should be arranged by total medals in my opinion, but its not. Until the standard changes, neither will Wikipedia. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving the British media sources as those are the media sources I knew about before researching this and those are all widely recognised media sources. If the British sources aren't good enough for you, then how about sources from France, China (the host nation) and Germany? And if that's not enough continents, then how about Australia? As far as I can tell, the biggest national newspaper in Australia is "The Australian" and their website's front page has the "medal tally" sorted by Gold. In fact, I haven't yet seen a SINGLE major news organisation from anywhere outside of the USA which sorts the table by total number of medals rather than by Golds.86.132.185.178 (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see:

• Gold Ordered:
  • IOC, BBC (UK), Le Monde (France), Der Spiegel (Germany), China Daily, Daily Globe (Canada), La gazzetta dello sport (Italy), Marca (Spain), Le soir (Belgium), The Australian, Yomiuri Shimbun (Japan), The Chosun Ilbo (South Korea), El Norte (Mexico) (edit: added many leading world newspapers, which means pretty much most of the world is counting this way)
• Total Ordered:
  • NBC, ESPN, Yahoo Sports, NYTimes, CNN/SI (which means USA only...)

Feel free to add others. Dragons flight (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how the Globe beat out the Star to represent Canada but here are the rest:

• Gold Ordered: CBC, Toronto Sun
• Total Ordered: CTV, Toronto Star, National Post, La Presse, Vancouver Sun (It's worth noting that CTV, the Star and La Presse all have a 'Position' column which you can click to sort the tables by golds.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxtreme (talk • contribs) 07:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the Globe is the Canadian newspaper of record. So the editor is correct in using the national newspaper to represent Canada. The Star is only a local newspaper. 76.69.63.234 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

True. Hardly any other country is listing by total. Only the USA is doing so. So this is obviously not "common" as tghe whole world is counting correctly, just as the IOC does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.113.248 (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So far it looks like a US vs the World thing. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 08:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made my case. I didn't pick and choose. I went to List of Newspapers in _____, picked one of the national newspapers and posted the link. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 08:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Chinese are heavily favoured to win the most golds this Games. The Americans are probably going to end up with the most medals overall, which is why all the AMERICAN networks are ranking by total medals (although as of now, China is leading in both categories at 9 golds and 13 total). The IOC tradition is golds first, and this has been the case since 1896. Wikipedia will not tweak things in America's favor. Wikipedian06 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous thing to say. "Total-centric" is how it is always done in the US (which explains why some people are amazed to discover that it's done in a different way elsewhere). In this Olympics and in every other. We didn't suddenly change to a more sensible system because the Chinese were going to beat us in Gold. That said, even though I absolutely believe that the IOC system is inferior...it doesn't matter. "Gold-Centric" is the commonly accepted standard in the IOC, the world at large, and the English speaking world. Wikipedia ought to reflect that.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with who benefits or doesn't benefit from a change. That would be an inadmissible argument, whether made in favor of or against a proposal. Read a logic book sometime. If you're going to advertise a "medal count," then all the medals should be counted, either with equal weight or via some kind of system that assigns points to various medals. As I said above, ranking a country that has won 30 more medals overall at the completion of a Games below a country that has won just one more gold is objectively ridiculous. Just because the IOC has been doing it this way for over 100 years doesn't automatically make it right, by the way. So apparently, what it takes to cement a flawed policy as acceptable in your mind is a century of tradition. Good to know. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no "weights" or "point values" assigned to each medals. If you feel the IOC gold-sorting method is flawed, that's your personal opinion, and it has no placed in a Wikipedia article per WP:NPOV. --Madchester (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. You haven't even noticed that I've been making an argument, not simply expressing an opinion, have you? (See my Russia-Thailand example below, from this Games.) --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we all saw the example. Good job. What I noticed in your example was that the country with the most golds was still ranked first. Here's an example for you: Two nations participate in the Olympics. Nation A participates in 50 events and gets gold every time. Nation B participates in 51 events and gets Bronze every time. Nation A beat Nation B in every event they participated in. By your logic they should be ranked as below Nation B even though they are obviously superior athletes. In my example the current way works. This is why we stick with tradition. We can't simply switch because it seems more logical this year. One year things could happen to be the way they are in your example and the next they could be like in mine. Can you imaging how china would react if the IOC suddenly said "this year we are going to rank by total medal count" and moved them down to second? There is some LOGIC for you. It would Piss off everyone but the US to switch the ranking system now. Is that LOGIC enough for you?

If we count 3rd as being worth as much as 1st, then what about fourth? What if Nation C came 4th in every single event in the Olympics? If 51 3rd place medals are worth more than 50 1sts, why aren't 52 4ths worth more than that? or 53 5ths? Can you apply LOGIC to that question?

We do it the way it's always been done because changing to make one nation happy now would make another nation mad. If you are so fond of logic you should understand this. Maybe you think it should have never been set up this way in the first place but you must know that no amount of logic can reverse this decision. Time goes forward. The only logical thing to do is to accept the way it is done and deal with it.--Matt D (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

First, in case you didn't notice, my example was meant to point out that it was a BAD THING that the country with the most golds was ranked first in that case. Second, I am still comfortable with ranking Nation B ahead of Nation A in your example, as extreme a case as it is -- because my way also allows me to rank --

Russia (92 medals, 27 gold) ahead of China (63 medals, 32 gold) in the medal count for Athens,

Germany (36 medals, 12 gold) ahead of Norway (25 medals, 13 gold) in the medal count for Atlanta,

Canada (13 medals, 3 gold) ahead of South Korea (6 medals, 4 gold) in the medal count for Lillehammer,

Italy (14 medals, 4 gold) ahead of the United States (11 medals, 5 gold) in the medal count for Albertville,

and South Korea (29 medals, 12 gold) over Spain (22 medals, 13 gold) in the medal count for Barcelona.

It's not like I looked hard, either, to find these examples where your way simply doesn't work at all. And there are plenty of others that I didn't cite. Third, since we're talking about medal count tables, and no medals are awarded for fourth place, your question makes no sense in the context of the debate, unless you'd like to start awarding them. There. Logic applied. (Ooh! We could have copper for fourth place, and pewter for fifth! And every last-place finisher could get a tin medal just for trying!) Fourth, my objection to the way the table is laid out has nothing whatsoever to do with any national affiliation. I am not from Russia, yet I do believe that winning 29 more medals than another country qualifies you to be ranked above them, even if they did win 5 more golds than you. Fifth, whether someone is more happy or more angry at this method of sorting should have absolutely no bearing at all on whether the rankings change or stay the same. I am fond enough of logic to understand THAT. That is why I am presenting an objection with examples; you're the one dragging hurt feelings into it. Sixth, although I agree that it would be very difficult for the IOC to switch at this late date, Wikipedia is not the IOC. It does not have to adhere to their flawed ranking system, or to some misguided sense of tradition. Finally, since you say that "everyone but the US" would be pissed at a switch, here are some examples of nations who would not be -- Australia, Italy, Russia, North Korea, France, the Netherlands, and Brazil. All would have higher places on the list as of this moment, and most other nations would stay the same. Nations like the Czech Republic, India, and Thailand would suffer some significant drops, but again, France has 9 medals and India and Thailand have 1 each. Care to take a stab as to why both are ahead of France? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

For starters, you might want to come up with a fair system. Let's take two countries, equal number of gold medals, but country A has 1 more silver medal than B, while B has 2 more bronze medals than A. Which one comes first? Is a silver medal worth twice as much as a bronze, or 1.5 times, or 2.5 times? Want to come up with a weighting system for how much a medal is worth? Go ahead, that might be the only way close to being "fair". I doubt it'll get accepted though, because a) it might be considered "too complicated", b) I've never seen it used anywhere else, and I'm not sure this is the best place to start a crusade for a new ranking system. --Flosch (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I did my best. Every system will have problems; I admit that. I simply claim that the one I advocate is MORE fair, in that it won't result in Country A being ranked behind Country B, when Country A has won significantly more medals yet slightly fewer golds. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"My system" doesn't work at all? "my system"? It is the official IOC system. And it is a bit of an exaggeration to say it doesn't work at all. Also you completly evaded my point that third and first are not the same thing. The reason they don't award medals for fourth is because it is not the same as first or second or third. That was my point. You seem capable enough of understanding why fourth doesn't get a medal but not of understanding why third is not the same as first. Evading my point is not the same thing as thinking about it. Saying that making countries angry or not is not an issue is blatant over simplification. You say both systems are flawed. Yet you think your system where, if nation A beat nation B every time they competed, nation A could still rank as lower than B because B got a bronze in one other event is MORE fair? perhaps it is more fair in some situations and even then only if you believe a bronze is worth the same as a gold. You can argue all you want that a million bronzes are better than one gold but your system would still make a gold and a bronze equal. Which is the same as saying that Nation A, B and C should be tied if one has 20 golds, one has 20 silvers, and one has 20 Bronze. How is that for fair? That is what your system, your awesomely fair system, would translate too. A country with 50 golds would be tied with a country with 50 silvers. 'A' beats 'B' 50 times and they tie. Okay... you admit their are flaws in both systems. Why call for change? It amounts to saying "Hey let's switch one flawed system for another because I have some examples where it would have worked out better even though there are just as many examples where it would have been worse". Just stop. The IOC being an international body of experts has, I'm sure, thought about this a lot. The examples I have provided are just as valuable as yours even if mine are hypothetical. There will be no switch. Because the current system IS more logical, wise, and fair.

Also, It is called a "Medal Table" now. Not "medal count" So you really should just stop. A) you are wrong. B) It isn't even a medal count any more. It is table which assigns more worth to gold inherantly. If you really want a table that shows number of medals as most important perhaps you could get some card board, and magic markers and make one.--Matt D (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with my promise below, I have confined my response to this post to the respective user's talk page. I respond here only to point out that I did agree to drop the subject and move on, almost five hours BEFORE this user castigated me for not dropping the subject and moving on. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, your position totally lacks logic, although you bring in logic as an argument. Every event has one winner who gets a gold medal, everyone else is a loser in that event even the silver and bronze medalists. Therefore, 1 gold medal is worth more than an infinite number of silver and bronze medals. Therefore, the current ranking system is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.126.176.165 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, first off, logic is not an ARGUMENT. We use logic to make sure our arguments are valid. If you're going to criticize someone else for their lack of "logic," it might behoove you to first learn the definition and some basic principles of reasoning. Second, your argument only holds if I am willing to admit your unspoken postulate that winning is the only thing that matters. I am not. Clearly the IOC agrees with me, on this issue at least. Else, why would they bother to give awards to those who came close but didn't win? Why wouldn't they just recognize the winners? Just because France was edged out by the United States in the men's 4x100m freestyle relay, that doesn't reduce the greatness of their swim -- they did shatter the old world record, after all. Their team, nominally at least, is better at that event than every other team in the world save only one, and then only by a few hundredths of a second. They deserve to be recognized for the level of excellence they have attained, as (to continue the example) does Team France generally. Their nine total medals, as of this writing, should result in them being listed BEFORE a country who has been represented on the podium by only a single athlete. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 00:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called tradition. Why did they lit the torch at Olympia in all Olympics? Because it's tradition. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Tradition has supported a lot of things in the past, not all of them good. It is, moreover, not an adequate defense for any action; just because something has ALWAYS been done doesn't mean that way is somehow better, or even right at all. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

One example of what some of us have been talking about -- Right now, Russia is ranked below Thailand on the default table setting. Russian athletes have won a total of six medals in these Olympics so far, while only one Thai has mounted the medal stand. Objectively, who has had the better Games to this point? With six medals to one, I would say Russia, and I think most people outside of Thailand would agree. However, because Russia has no golds, and Thailand's only medal is gold, the IOC says Thailand has had a better Games. So, this is the point of view some of you are actually championing? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest to make the Ranking # column to be fixed (i.e. non-sortable). In other words, just direct numbering 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... from top to bottom and will not change when different sortings is used. In this way, the ranking # can be used to reflect ANY METHOD each user wants to sort the medals.....including assigning Ranking #1 to the country with the lowest medals!!!! :D Heilme (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, in this way, Wikipedia listing will not be seen as biased compared to the media who use different counting systems. This will also solve the traditional vs. logical argument above. Please, this issue is actually not new. The 2004 Summer Olympics medal count also had similar argument before. Let's all stay friendly. Olympics spririt!! Heilme (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

However, the drawbacks of this system is 1) it may assign ranking #1 to countries with 0 medals (depending on how you sort up or down), 2) it will not be able to reflect ties i.e. two or more countries with the same amount of medal types/counts. But this will be very neutral. Another alternative, but a lot more work & messy, is to insert the ranking # as parenthesis next to each medal types. So, for instance, USA, gold: 5 (rank #1), silver: 4 (rank #1), total: 9 (rank #2). All in all, I still prefer to do nothing and let things stay the way it is with ample explanation. Heilme (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

We've gone through this discussion many times, most notably during the 2006 Olympics, where we finally standardised our Olympic reporting guidelines. (See here)

Note that the IOC intended the medal count for "information only"... "as it does not recognise global ranking per country." This disclaimer is present for every IOC medal table, from Athens 1896 to Turin 2006. The IOC uses the gold-medal sort method simply for presentation of medal information. It in no way makes claims of one nation's "superiority" over another nation due to the number of medal (types) won. The media and public may use the medal count for that purpose, but not the IOC.

If there's any confusion from editors thinking that the IOC sorting system is not properly reflected in the article name... then change all related articles from "medal count" to "medal table". The latter term is the one used by the IOC. --Madchester (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support a movement of pages to "medal table". I note that the WP:OLY convention for section headers in individual sport articles (e.g. Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics) is to use "Medal table", and the consistency with the per-Games totals would be welcome. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You may have gone through the discussion. I have not, and your earlier decision continues to seem illogical. However, if the only remedy any of you are willing to countenance is a switch of terminology to "medal table," I suppose I'll go along. At least it removes the implication which "medal count" seems to carry to me, and others like me. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I vote oppose to any sorting system except the IOC official one. Python eggs (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

YAY, VOTING!!! *roll eyes* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I saw some edits to this page and came to suggest that maybe a sortable table would solve the problem... but then I see that it's already a sortable table. What's to argue about? (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We have this same discussion every 2 or 4 years when newcomers start editing/browsing Olympics articles on Wikipedia. Folks, this horse has been beaten to death multiple times, and the current format is the consensus, backed up by reliable sources. Several of these lists are also featured, it should be said. Nobody had any issues when these went through the FL candidate process. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a case of Mr. Anonymous from Oklahoma trying to push his POV and engage in OR. The consensus has been firmly established and should remain. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, congratulations on identifying my location. It must have been difficult. Second, you will please note that I have not edited the medal count one single time -- only the talk page, trying to make a case for a better method of presentation. If I were REALLY trying to push my POV, I would be editing the main page instead, and getting barred for my efforts. As for engaging in OR, I freely admit the charge, but this "capital offense" has only become necessary because so few people on here seem willing to engage in thought at all. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we all must do as you want, eh? Now we have India ahead of France, very logical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you list a major media outlet from India or France that arranges it by total medal? or even find one outside of America? the Olympics are organized by the IOC. I do not see an issue if we follow their guidelines on medal count. Find me a list of the amount of times a team has made it to the Super Bowl ranked ahead of the number of times a team has won the Super Bowl, very logical. 209.195.79.131 (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Be realistic. There is no prize equivalent to a silver or bronze medal in American football. You sound like the person above, who said that he considered a gold medal worth more than any number of bronzes and silvers, just like he considered a win in the FA Cup or the Super Bowl better than any number of runner-up finishes. To my reply to him above, I will only add that if you show me Cardiff City's silver medal trophy for being FA Cup runners-up, or show me video of the Packers and/or the Chargers mounting the medal podium in bronze position alongside the Giants and Patriots, I will reconsider my position. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice of you to reply to only half the argument I presented and totally ignore listing "a major media outlet from India or France that arranges it by total medal? or even find one outside of America?" Also, the Super Bowl's participating teams are referred to as National/American Football Conference champions. I would say that is equivalent to a silver/bronze. Funny how you can use the IOC in favor of you medal count argument and then disargee with them at the same time. Olympians train to win gold. silver and broze are only consolation prizes. When the Olympics plays the national anthem of all 3 medalist I will reconsider my position.

Well here's some video footage of the Cardiff players looking rather dejected as they step up to receive their runners up medals...212.124.225.66 (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll see France jump way ahead of India soon. I'm guessing you are show that the U.S. is at the top of the tally right now. Thankfully, none of this will matter soon as China basically has a lock on the Gold and total medals from 2012 and onwards.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If this would be changed to cumulative medal totals it would be an injustice to the world as a whole. Can anyone name any website or major news outlet based outside of the United States that sorts by total medals? I doubt it as it is simply an issue of American bias. Sticking with the official formatting will keep this article considered legitimate outside of the USA. Weather130 (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankfully, the fact that China has now more medals than US, also in the total count, should lessen the number of objections. Anyway, the official IOC count should very logically be the reference. And no, Wikipedia is not the place to correct what the rest of the world is doing. Indeed, this would be the whole point of WP:OR Ratfox (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

To get the section break back on track...

I know that all of you are getting sick of me. I'm sorry about that, I really am. HOWEVER, anyone who is responding to me in this section break has missed its point. Regardless of my exchanges with numerous posters above, the purpose of this section break (initiated by Madchester) was to propose a switch of terminology from "medal count" to "medal table." I support this switch for two reasons:

1) It ends the argument. This would not change your precious sorting system IN ANY WAY, and it would remove my initial reason for objecting to the sorting method. As I have said above, "medal count" implies to me that the medals will be counted by quantity alone, unweighted as to color. Clearly, it does to others as well (though not to the majority of you, I admit). A table, on the other hand, can be organized in any different number of ways.

2) It is the terminology used by the IOC. This alone should win most of you over. See this page for the Turin Games for an example of what I mean. Surely if you're so committed to the IOC counting method, you won't have an objection to the IOC terminology.

Is this an acceptable compromise? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been called a "medal table" for hours... Dragons flight (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, but it's not changed in the article itself (bold text, first paragraph). That's what I was referring to. Would you mind changing it? Once that's done, I will drop the issue forever, I swear. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for changing it, Dragons flight. I still have issues with the way the medals are sorted, but the change of terminology is satisfying enough to me. To the relief of everyone, myself included, I am withdrawing my objection. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My personal belief is the fairest way is to assign 3 points to a gold, 2 to a silver, and 1 to a bronze. And then add it all up and sort by the totals. Alternatively, you could strengthen the value of a gold by making it 4 points. It worsk as a good compromise. In my opinion.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the major underlying reason for having this discussion at all has nothing whatsoever to do with common usage or logical order or any other reason which has been mentioned. Rather, it has directly to do with what formatting will show *my* nation to best advantage over others, and especially over its closest rivals. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agress with Medallurgist, it's the fairest way to organize the table, that way a country with 75 silver medals doesn't get beat by a country with only 1 gold medal Redekopmark (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually do not care if my country (US) or my favorite countries (Russia, Mongolia, etc...) are on top. I don't think favoritism is as strong as you think it is, but whatever.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

So why the determination to overturn the IOC method of ranking in favour of original research, in the name of "fairness"? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.161 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't do any research. I used common sense on what is the most practical and fair way to do it. It's interesting that this isn't the way it's done. Because it should be done by weighting the different medals and totalling it all up. Metallurgist (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Original research is any idea, including systems and structures and categorising, the (more or less objective) validity of which has not been verified independently, preferably through peer-reviewed work. Original research is also any interpretation of events rather than simple reporting of events, be it through "common sense" or otherwise. (All newspapers around the world ultimately rely on the IOC statistics, whatever their reconstruction of them, making those the primary source.) For neither of these is any form of data gathering required - one reason that original research is not allowed on Wikipedia or any respectable encyclopaedia. There can be no perfect system of ranking, but to alter the existing IOC system requires delving into original research. Reading that a thing "should be done" due to "common sense" is an almost certain signal of editorialising, which also qualifies as original research (see second point). - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Coudn't a sentence be added stating that some countries prefer to sort the medal table by total medals rather than by Gold? There was something on there the other day but it's been removed because it singled out America as a notable example. I assume someone was worried that it could lead to American bashing. I think it is important to point this fact out though (but don't need to single out America). The only reason I came to the WP page on medal tables was too find out why America seemed to be sorting the table differently. In fact I wasn't even aware that anyone sorted it other than by Gold total until yesterday when browsing other countires olympic coverage and looked at a couple of American news sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.139.74 (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you took the rankings as shown in the article as of August 17, and further sorted the first three alphabetically, you could move Great Britain up to second place. Everybody happy?JGC1010 (talk) 03:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, I knew this disagreement was going to happen. This is my first olympics living in the US and I was amused to see their table ranking method, yet no American I talk to seems to think the other way is more sensible. In Australia we always did it like the IOC. For all the people who think total medals are more important (ie: 2nd and 3rd being just as good as first), if your team won 5 "superbowls" and another team was runner up in six, would you consider that other team more successful? Does a team that scores 1000 baskets in the year but only wins 70% of their games deserve to be on top of the NBL ladder instead of the team that won 75% of their games but only scored 950 baskets? Winning is what counts. I didn't see NBC going on about Phelps' quest for "Eight total medals" - he was after EIGHT GOLD. If we are going to give equal ranking to a first and second runner up then why not just rank everyone who competed equally?

The IOC's method also makes more sense because it recognises the nation with the best overall athletes rather than the nation with the largest training programme and broadest net cast to find possible competitors. I'd consider a team with a high strike rate of success better than a team with more also-rans than winners.70.180.211.82 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC) 70.180.211.82 (talk) 12:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

According to this Article, the IOC does not OFFICIALLY recognize either format for medal tables. They release information in the Gold first manner, but under the Olympic charter there is no 'Official IOC Medal Table'. There has been a split on this subject for decades. More here: http://www.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html?mod=psp_free_today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.131.28 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has admittedly not read the vast majority of this discussion (in this section let alone the numerous others devoted to it), I submit that we stick to the way it's been done on the pages for prior Olympic games and leave it alone. The IOC doesn't have an official rule because different organizations do it differently, and there's nothing wrong with the status quo unless someone wants to modify every medal tally with hundreds of insignificant changes. Although that's probably too logical an argument to work. Thompsontough (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The best table would recognize the special prestige of gold medals but also value silver and bronze. You can make a strong case, based on how everyone talks about the results and the relative attention that various medalists get, that silver is worth double bronze and gold worth double silver. So a points table that gave 4 pts for gold, 2 for silver and 1 for bronze would be a fine way to reconcile the differing views above. It would avoid the absurdities of the various extreme examples quoted above (on both sides). 100 bronze medals are of course better than 5 golds, but 5 golds are of course better than 6 bronzes, etc.

As of August 19th, this would give the following table: 1. China 219 pts 2. USA 178 pts 3= Great Britain 86 pts 3= Russia 86 pts 5. Australis 78 pts There's a lot to be said for having a single points system. As a voice of rationality, Wikipedia could add this as a calculated 'prestige points' column and see if it catches on. Thephilosopher (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The would violate WP:OR. also your point allocation is entirely arbitrary. G=3, S=2, B=1 or G=10, S=5, B=2 could both be defended. Any scheme other than IOCs official ranking is pointless. Jooler (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true that any new points system is 'arbitrary' until it catches on. But either 4-2-1, or 10-5-2 wd be better than both the IOC table or the US media total medal tables -- because these point systems take all medals into account in a reasonable way. Is any credible body out there trying to promote such a system? Someone should. Thephilosopher (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe somebody should, but it is absolutely certain it shouldn't be created on Wikipedia, which by its own rules should not be considered as a credible body... It's the whole point of WP:OR Ratfox (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I'm getting tired of this debate. It really doesn't matter what any of us think, only what IOC says. They organise the event, they count the medals, they are the authority, that is it.They have been doing this the same way for decades, we do not have the right to change anything just because we think it's "more logical" or whatever. Imagine that, say in the UK, some backward retarded newspaper decides to sort the premiership teams by hair length cause then their favourite local 3rd division team turns out to be first... If IOC says "sort by penis length", then we sort by that, that's it, end of story. If anyone objects, send an official request to IOC to change their table, then we will of course change this one. Alpha-Toxic (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It is tiring, especially since people continue to harp 'it's how the IOC does it' when in fact, the IOC has NO OFFICIAL TABLE and is expressly prohibited from doing to by their charter. As long as that is clearly pointed out, I have no problem listing it either way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.131.28 (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that we have all agreed that the medals should all be organised in a table, I believe there is an error in the first sentence of the article. The first sentence states that the medal table is ranked by number of medals won but the medal table itself shows the teams ranked by number of golds won. I think the first sentence of the article should be changed to show that their is some controversy as to how the medal table should be organised. Bazwerth —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the first sentence does not suit the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.198.159.38 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Reiterating an earlier point, the only reason to argue about the relative value of medals is to assume that the table is intended to somehow place one nation's abilities objectively and absolutely over another's. Yet an encyclopaedic table is only a system of classification, not a system of valuation. If we thus assume that a table in Wikipedia should be an expression of data and not of value, as is much more typical in kinesiology and other sciences, then this whole debate becomes moot.

(Consider - hydrogen is listed above helium, but does that make hydrogen more valuable? or even *always* lighter than helium? Mr A is always listed in a conventional encyclopaedia ahead of Mr F, but does that make him more valuable?)

Still, as a proposed clarification edit to replace the existing version with a more neutral "method", try this. (It has been sitting far below this flurry of argument for a week, invisibly.)

"The information in this table is based on data provided by the International Olympic Committee. Following the IOC method, ranking sorts first by the number of gold medals earned by the athletes representing the country. In case of ties, the number of silver medals is taken into consideration, and then the number of bronze medals. If still tied, countries are listed alphabetically by IOC country code.In this context, a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee and recognized by the International Olympic Committee."

The purpose of this edit would be to clarify the reasoning for the ranking choice up front, and also clarifies both country recognition (see Kosovo) and that athletes representing a country are not necessarily "from" that country. It does not include the requested "not worldwide", since that ought to be implicit from "IOC method" (which after all is not a governmental body). - Tenebris

A gold medal means you WON an event while a silver or bronze means you came in SECOND and THIRD place. The rankings go by the number of events won. Obviously, a country with one win (Gold Medal) will finish ahead of a country with 4 THIRD PLACE finishes (Bronze Medal) who didn't win any events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh and here's the official medal table from the IOC in 2004. Note that China is ahead of Russia because it has more golds but less overall medals: http://www.olympic.org/uk/games/past/table_uk.asp?OLGT=1&OLGY=2004 Enjoy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.21.101 (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be total medals, in my opinion. Look at these examples (medal counts as of 8/22 12:30 AM EST):

10	Netherlands (NED)	6	5	4	15
11	France (FRA)	5	13	14	32

The Netherlands is ranked above France. The Netherlands has one more gold medal, but eight fewer silver medals, ten fewer bronze medals, and seventeen fewer total medals. France has more than twice as medal total medals.

21	Georgia (GEO)	3	0	3	6
22	Cuba (CUB)	2	6	6	14

Georgia is ranked above Cuba. Georgia has one more gold medal, but six fewer silver medals, three fewer bronze medals, and eight fewer total medals. Cuba has more than twice as many total medals.

It is nonsensical to rank simply by gold medals. If anything, the medals should be weighted (perhaps 5 for gold, 3 for silver, and 1 for bronze). Phizzy (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

how 20?

how it is possibe 20 medals?maybe 21?? there alwayes should be 3 medals no?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.106.115 (talk) 11:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In some events four medals are awarded, two of them bronze, where losing semi-finalists do not play each other for 3rd and 4th places. Strayan (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Two tables?

I noticed that the text says the table will organize first by gold, then by silver, then by bronze. I think it would be better to have two tables, one that organizes by gold through bronze, and one that does it on total medal count (unless rankedmedaltable has a sortable option I've never noticed). Kolindigo (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The default is gold, but the table will be sortable, so people will be able to arrange the table to sort by gold, total, silver, bronze or nation. Like this one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it is sortable. *laughs* Thanks, now I feel like an idiot. Cool functionality! Kolindigo (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The table should default sort (and rank) based on total medal count, as that is how the IOC's table is sorted/will be sorted. -- Me^Holla! 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IOC goes by gold medals, they do that with all of their other medal tables, such as this one -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the whole world except USA goes by gold medals... So this is absolutely correct. Total medal count doesnt make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.113.248 (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

We agree on the total count: I think that to some extent, the USA would find a way to sort the medal count by country name starting by "usa", in order to be first. The coverage of the games in the USA is also quite "American", but I'm sure that any country, starting by France, is showing their athletes first. Nevertheless, showing medals by total number is a brilliant find. GO TEAM AMERICA !!! (heard the other day for water polo). Peace brothers and sisters. PATtheFrog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.214.42 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

First gold

On the Current Events section of Wikipedia, there are two news items, each claiming that said event was the first gold of the Games. Perhaps someone here can fix the issue and allow more clarity. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)/

I have a feeling it was the Womens 10m air rifle shooting where the Czech Repulic won that gold 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Olympic Event Medal Table

Can someone put the Individual Event table back up, as i found this really helpful earlier this morning 86.132.88.42 (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It may be helpful, but this is not the right place for it. I'll ask some users if there is precedent for creating an individual page for a list of medalists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If we do create a new page, can we try and do this for other olympics i.e the 2000 and 2004 olympics 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think the Individual Event list was very helpful and should be somewhere on Wikipedia, if not in this article. Seancp (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find the individual medals from any olympics in there indivuidal articals e.g the mens road race that was held this morning 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, there are already pages that sort the medals by event (ie. Fencing at the 2008 Summer Olympics), there are already pages that sort medals by nation (ie. China at the 2008 Summer Olympics) and there is now a page that includes gold medalists (2008 Summer Olympics highlights) so having yet another page of medalists would be overkill. Would it really be that much more useful than the current pages that we have right now? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it would. Just imagine if your doing a report on whos won what at the games and your internet is on a very slow dial-up connection. Imagine how much time it would take to load all 302 page up 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people doing such a report would not use wikipedia. You have to remember, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports site. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But an encyclopedia has to have everything covered inside out and back to front if you know what i mean 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia only gives broad coverage about a topic. For example, in film articles we don't describe the entire plot, only major plot details. Please see WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is not. --Madchester (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I just think though that whoever thought of that table up this morning had a brilliant idea. All i get is someone on the tv saying that this country won gold. With the Table it breaks the medal count to an easy to read table, and i don't mind filling the table in for past olympics 86.132.88.42 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sure there is a site that lists the medal winners in a table such as is wanted somewhere elsewhere on the internet. (That being said, I haven't looked myself...) Why not just find it and include it in related links and/or references? I don't think it belongs in the wiki, but it's a useful resource for 'pic followers. chicgeek (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree that having a table that lists the event winners is both useful and not overkill. It allows someone to access the information in one place, not try to figure it out when it is not clear what events have occured. Jvsett (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone can publish a new page, I can begin (with others) to fill in both Past Olympics and the 2008 Olympics 86.132.88.42 (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Has someone done the Event Table Page? 86.132.88.42 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is someone going to start the Event table medal page? 86.137.11.52 (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you want a list of each event UK's BBC If you want the names for each person [USA's NBC] Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

See List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for whoever started it, and i'll help with past olympics 86.151.64.155 (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue Background

I am very much an advocate of the overall medal count determining the leader, but when users edit the page, it is crucial that China always be highlighted in Blue (or whatever color you like), as the home country._-Z-_ (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It does. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordering of tied countries

There seems to be at least some edit warring going on regarding the ordering of tied countries in the list. I'd propose a well-defined policy of what the ordering should be - either alphabetical by country name or country code would make the most sense to me. I just think that this needs to be stated somewhere. --Mbell (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Country code is probably the better choice. JPG-GR (talk) 02:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Searching for precedent at the moment - the 2000 list seems to prefer by country name... but also contradicts itself within itself... JPG-GR (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1996 prefers country name, so does 1992 and 1988. JPG-GR (talk) 03:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Going by the official Beijing 2008 medal standings the IOC is using the country codes for the rankings. Since country names can be spelled differently in the two main IOC languages (English and French), I believe the organization uses the country codes for sorting purposes. For example, we don't have one English ranking using "Spain" and one French ranking using "Espagne". --Madchester (talk) 03:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The IOC itself seems to sort by country name in whatever the language is - see the English and French rankings from 2000. I agree with JPG-GR and Madchester that country code is probably the better choice, though. --Mbell (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I didn't realize the IOC had separate publications for each language.

On that note, I noticed in the 2000 rankings that both Chinese Taipei (TPE) and Morocco (MAR) are ranked 58th overall. However, instead of following the IOC code, it seems to be going by English spelling, thus Chinese Taipei is listed "before" Morocco.

I think there needs to be more investigation (and discussion) to resolve this matter. --Madchester (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this only after using silver and bronze medals as second and third tiebreakers? -- Me^Holla! 03:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We're just figuring out what to do if two (or more) countries have the same distribution of medals.

For example, if you review the 2000 English and French standings, the 61st ranked nations are listed differently depending on the language used. I'm leaning towards using the IOC's English table (and sorting method) as our main reference, since this is English Wikipedia. IMHO, the IOC should have simply used the country codes to standardized the listing procedure for tied countries. --Madchester (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We should use either the English names or the country codes. Considering official rankings are put by name, that would be more correct, I guess. I think we all agree that using country codes is better, but alas, it's only our opinion. BalkanFever 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

To keep it chinese (as the olympics are in beijing), why not put it in stroke order refering to the opening ceromany order. I know its a bit strenuous but it does keep within the host nation 86.132.88.42 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, all someone would need to do to maintain the Chinese order would be to refer to 2008_Summer_Olympics_national_flag_bearers#Parade_order. It should become less and less relevant as the Olympics continues. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Source?

The table currently says the US has 10 medals, while the official Olympics website lists 8 [1]. Either the table is wrong or people are getting information from some more rapidly updated source. If there is a more current source can people say what it is? Dragons flight (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The US won two medals in the Men's swimming final at around 22:15 local time (GMT - 08:00)--there is live news coverage of the event here. Dirc (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean Phelps and Locte? That happened 3 hours ago. The "live" coverage being fed to the West coast of the US is actually a tape of the live coverage that was shown on the East Coast. Dragons flight (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there's some double-counting from redundant sources, then. Hopefully the problem will be fixed before the error propagates too far :-/ Dirc (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, as of right now the list matches the official Olympic list. Dragons flight (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Official Medal Count on the Beijing 2008 Olympics Website does not reflect that the US has additional medals. Also, no additional players are listed on the United States for these medals --Toolofthesystem (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal count incorrect

The medal count has an extra gold, silver, and bronze medal added to the US' count and an extra gold added to South Korea's count. This is blatant US-centrism editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.156.172 (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See above section: editor error and assume good faith. And sign with the tildes. Kingnavland (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is the policy to only edit the table when the official page is edited? I just had my edit reverted; it was based on what I saw on the US medal count page. If that's the case, that page needs to be reverted too. Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure why the only acceptable source is the official Beijing 2008 page. bluemonq (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

An error was made on this page. Someone copied that error to the US page. You then copied it back. Not your fault, but something that needed sorting out. Dragons flight (talk) 06:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are there (as of this post) 14 bronze medals but only 12 gold and 12 silver? I thought for each event, equal numbers of medals were awarded. This is not a mistake in this article, as I see it is in the source, but an explanation might be useful.-gadfium 05:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

See a previous section (by which I mean scroll back up). Apparently there are some sports where semi-finalists don't contest for a single bronze? bluemonq (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see in 2004 Summer Olympics medal count#Medal count there is an explanation: two bronze medals were awarded per event in boxing and judo. An equivalent explanation would be nice in this article.-gadfium 05:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And it's also possible when two swimmer finishes the same time in the final. In this case two medals of the same color will be awarded with no next medal (for example 2 gold medals, 0 silver, 1 bronze). It happened maybe 2000 (or 2004) in the men's 50m freestyle. (sorry for poor english :)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.30.127 (talk) 07:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to indicate that, there is an offset of 1 extra Silver medal or perhaps 1 less gold, anyway basing on what you said maybe it's good to form a new section or maybe a new page where we indicated where 2 medals of the same color were given in cases of a tie.z nihilist (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The twin bronzes for swimming ties happened again this Olympics, twice so far. The judo/taekwando/wrestling explanation seems to already have been well handled in the introduction. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone edit Medal Table Commentary that Jamaica won twin silvers in the women's 100 (Athletics)? [edit - never mind, someone got to it.] - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.10 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Links in Table

The section links for each number will make it a lot harder to update the table. I propose that the country name links to the relevant "Medallists" section, and that the numbers be de-linked. BalkanFever 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the Gold, Silver, and bronze medals are linked to the corresponding *subsection* of the nations page. Some readers find this more convenient than just linking the flag to the nations page (but not the medalist subsection). Others seem to find it unnecessary, since all it saves the reader is a scroll down the nations page, and is inconvenient to the editors. Since there has been some editing going on back and fourth, let's try to agree on how we should link to the medal list. I propose convenienve of the reader before inconenience of the editors. Esprungo 05:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

They look like shit...and they make it harder to update. Plus the country link goes to that article anyway. --CWY2190(talk • contributions) 06:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The existing precedent in all the other medal count articles work best. The "Medallists" section is at the top of each linked country article, so the additional internal links are redundant. See "Wikipedia is not mere collections of internal links" --Madchester (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, somebody please do it then. Too hard for me ;) BalkanFever 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Unless someone can explain why we need to have 4 internal links to the same article (and thus violate Wikipedia:NOTLINK) I think we'll stick to the precedent established by past articles. --Madchester (talk) 06:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Template for Olympic Medal count

hi, I made a template for Olympic Medal count. So, I think it's useful and easy to use . This is a preview:

{{Olympic Medal header|class=wikitable sortable}}
{{Olympic Medal team |p=1 |t=CHN |c=2008 Summer |g=3 |s=1 |b=0 |bg=ccccff }}
{{Olympic Medal team |p=2 |t=USA |c=2008 Summer |g=2 |s=2 |b=4 }}
{{Olympic Medal team |p=3 |t=KOR |c=2008 Summer |g=2 |s=1 |b=0 }}
{{Olympic Medal total|g=7 |s=5 |b=4}}
{{Olympic Medal footer}}

Any suggestion to improve.--KSA¹³ 07:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, can you make it Olympic Medal ;) BalkanFever 07:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Y Done :):)--KSA¹³ 09:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The template looks great, but I think it can do without the additional internal links for each medal column. In the example above, there would be 5 internal links leading to the same "China at the 2008 Olympics" page and that would violate WP:NOTLINK. (On the other hand, Roger_Federer#Singles_performance_timeline has a table containing many internal links, but they all lead to different event articles so it doesn't violate WP:NOTLINK.) --Madchester (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Y internal links removed.--KSA¹³ 23:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks okay but I'm not sure what the point is. The point of a template is to save space, and using that would just make things even longer. As well, I don't think we would need to link to "____ at the Summer Olympics" five consecutive times. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Those templates work good for football, but I don't think they work here. Its actually simpler to see the order and number of medals in the table format when editing. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 23:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it really needed to sort the first column (rank)? Maxime.Debosschere (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cause it's international standart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

real rankings

how do they really determine who wins @ olympics? is it by point value 3-2-1 or total medals or total golds or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The medal count is just the IOC's way of sorting the relative position of each country's performance. The IOC strictly states that this in not a national ranking and thus there is no such thing as an "overall winner" of the Olympics. For example, China won't get a special prize for winning the most golds, nor will the States win one for having the most medals.

For sorting purposes, the IOC places emphasis on gold medals, as described at the top of the article. --Madchester (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that the IOC places emphasis on gold medals, but the official medal count ranks countries by the TOTAL medal count. This needs to be changed on the main page! Proof: http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/95A/GL0000000.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdnomad (talk • contribs) 06:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That page is ranked by golds. Dragons flight (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

it's (outside the US) worldwide common practice to count the gold-winners first

Suggestion

Okay. I know this is a wiki. However, given the events of last night, in which everyone was adding and subtracting medals due to mass confusion, perhaps we should ask the admins to create designated editors to update the medal count and put the page on full protect. Rationale:

This page should only be updated a few times each day. There are 13 medal events on Day 3 of the Games; therefore, there should be 13 edits. Any other edits are not constructive and, depending on the severity, could be considered vandalism. (Obviously, page formatting and stuff would be different; however, that stuff should be discussed on the talk page anyway.)

The need to reliably disseminate accurate information is more important than letting any user edit in what they think is correct based on tape-delayed coverage, late reports, etc.

Feel free to disregard me, attack me, draw-and-quarter me as necessary. Kingnavland (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it won't happen. You could try taking the case to WP:RFP, but I can guarantee you it won't be protected. The solution is simple, people need to stop the impulse editing and check to make sure the medal hasn't already been added to the total. One user tried listing all of the days events in hidden text and having people remove them once they updated the page, but it didn't work so well. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Scorpion, thanks for the input. I rather liked the hidden text, as I couldn't find an article anywhere that listed the medal events by day in text form rather than that chart. I will take it to WP:RFP. Kingnavland (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

-after protection denied- What a buffoon. Same administrator semi-protected this page for 3 days - as though the problem will disappear in 3 days. Kingnavland (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, it's not as if there won't be any new editors during the remaining days. I don't think long-term semi/full protection will happen, which is a pity; I believe this might be a result of there not being enough admins. --92.104.153.110 (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

For the record and to his credit, same admin extended the semiprotection until the end of the Games. Kingnavland (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture

Obviously there's some disagreement about whether an image is needed or wanted here or not - I leave it to others to grapple over that. But if an image is indeed desired, why not have the one of the medals themselves? chicgeek ^talk 00:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It can't be used because it's a non free image and those are strongly discouraged on list pages like this. I have no problem with using the current image for the time being. Eventually, an image of the medals or medals being awarded will become available, and we can switch to that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

titles

the USA should be referred to as "USA" or "United States of America" that's the official title, the rest of the official titles are used, so "United States" just won't cut it...

I also recommend changing "China" to People's Republic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.133.65.158 (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's convention is to use common names rather than unnecessarily long formal versions. Hence we prefer "United States" to "United States of America", etc. Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And plus you forgot "South Korea" to Republic of Korea, "Norht Korea" to Democratic People's Republic of Korea, "Russia" to Russian Fredration, etc. I think it is better to be left alone as Dragons flight had said. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 06:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

And my favorite, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 06:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's funny. Didn't know about that full title. That said, regardless of character count, it's unlikely anyone will mistake the "United States" for another country. --92.104.153.110 (talk) 12:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

He has a point, at least change the China one... That can get confusing. I also say change US to USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.25.186 (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the previous games it has the same names for many years, it did not had a problem for the past 28 games. — ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 08:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New countries, new diplomatic issues. Easily 10% of countries did not exist, 28 Olympics ago or even three summer Olympics ago. Do you call it FYR Macedonia or just plain Macedonia? Do you call it Hong Kong or Chinese Hong Kong, Taiwan or (per the treaty) Chinese Taipei? Do you piss off the Greeks or the Slavic Macedonians, the Chinese or the Taiwanese? Don't ask what the objective, formal name is, because in these cases, there isn't one. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Note/comment for all-time medal firsts per nation?

During the parade of nations, I recall the NBC commentators stating that certain countries (I don't remember which) have never won a single medal at all during any Olympic games. Have any won their first medal so far, and if so, can/should a note be made in this article? --92.104.153.110 (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Has any country won a first medal? I trierd to google for it but too many false positives came up ("first individual gold medal", "first medal of this games", etc.) Rmhermen (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Cross-referencing with All-time Olympic Games medal count, it appears Tajikistan is the only country so far that is recieving a medal for the first time. This source [2] confirms that it is Tajikistan's first medal. I'm not sure whether we would want to track this on an ongoing basis though. Dragons flight (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Togo just got their first as well. Rmhermen (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

These are also noted on their respective country pages. There are not that many countries in the world, should not be too hard to track those very few which have never before won a medal? After all, we are not likely to see another such a burst of new countries as that of the post-1990s for a very long time. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 07:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia won its first gold medal this year. Kingturtle (talk) 13:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

European Union

It would be interesting to add the combined total of the European Union to the table.

This is what is would look like:

1	European Union	11	13	9	33
2	China (CHN)	9	3	2	14
3	South Korea (KOR)	4	4	0	8
4	United States (USA)	3	4	5	12
5	Australia (AUS)	2	0	3	5
6	Japan (JPN)	2	0	2	4

85.5.187.219 (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This was suggested during the 2006 Olympics, but was met with a lot of opposition, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that since nations compete separately for themselves, there's no reason to conglomerate results for the purpose of making the region look better. Jared (t)  18:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the EU does not have its own National Olympics Committee. Each EU member countries have their own and compete amongst each other. Heilme (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, many sports only allow one or two teams to enter from each country. The EU would presumably have many fewer chances to medal if the entire EU were limited to only one or two teams per event, hence it is not an entirely fair comparison. Dragons flight (talk) 18:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Still, it might be interesting to compile a table comparing the different continents. 85.5.187.219 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a rediculous idea because several competitors from the several European nations are competing at once in one event. For example, in an event where you are limited to a certain amount of competitors, China would be limited to 1 or 2 competitors, whereas France, Great Britain, and the rest of the European nations are allowed their 1 or 2 competitors. This represents an overwhelming overrepresentation. As whole Europe has a lot more chances to win if they're throwing more than a single country's fair share of competitors into the match. Imagine if the US team was limited to one competitor at any one event and they decided to bring 5 competitors for that same event. Obviously their chances at medals exceed much more than if they had just sent 1. Of course, this would be cheating and would never happen. Neither should the medals of all the EU or European countries be lumped together. It is "cheating" and quite honestly just childish. 69.111.17.49 (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

But you can also argue that, if Europe combines its strenght, it can compound united teams which are much stronger than ten or more seperated teams. It's like one US baseketball team vs ten basketball teams of ten diiferent US states (New York, California etc.). While the US team is the absolute favourite, a devided team would have almost no chance for gold. Germany might have a player like Nowitzki, but that is not enough. One Kobe Bryant would also be not enough.--91.36.211.178 (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, that wouldn't be fair to the Antarcticans. :P Heilme (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't be silly. They only compete in the Winter Games. Dragons flight (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The Antartican beach-volleyball team is more competitive than the Jamaican bobsled team! 85.5.187.219 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Superpowers medal tally

Actually, here is a more accurate portrayal:

1	European Union	11	13	9	33
2	China (CHN)	10	3	3	16
5	United States (USA)	6	6	8	20
3	Japan (JPN) (includes the former Japanese colonies)	6	4	3	11
4	Great Britain (GBR) (Includes the Commonwealth countries)	6	2	4	12
6	Russia (RUS) (Includes the former Soviet SSRs)	1	4	5	10

--Amazonien (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the UN. Heilme (talk)

And NATO. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was a joke. But for the record, no, this page isn't for alternate histories about the British Empire and Soviet Union being intact. ;) Thompsontough (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It's amusing as a point of discussion (though it's probably completely out of place in the Wiki)... But are the British medals being counted twice, for both the EU list and the British Empire list? And shouldn't the British Empire be taking credit for all of the medals won by their former colony in North America? 212.124.225.66 (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But what if the athlete isn't from one of the original 13 colonies (states)? Do they still get credit for that? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What is Russia doing there?

Unranked at bottom

1	China (CHN)	9	3	2	14
2	South Korea (KOR)	4	4	0	8
3	United States (USA)	3	4	5	12
4	Australia (AUS)	2	0	3	5
5	Japan (JPN)	2	0	2	4
-	European Union	11	13	9	33

Unranked at the bottom is the only possibility, but as other have mentioned having more teams than any single nation makes it kinda meaningless. Only slightly interesting to see. --85.197.248.132 (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

After all we have total medal count as it has some meaning. The medals are nowhere equal and can not be summed. It's just interesting like the total medal count, even though it has no real meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.248.132 (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If the European Union going to be added on the end there should also be African Union, Union of South American Nations, Association of Southeast Asian Nations etc. added onto the chart without rank also.

1	China (CHN)	13	3	4	20
2	United States (USA)	7	7	8	22
3	South Korea (KOR)	5	6	1	12
4	Germany (GER)	4	1	1	6
5	Italy (ITA)	3	4	2	9
-	European Union	11	13	9	33
-	Association of Southeast Asian Nations	1	1	2	4
-	African Union	0	2	2	4
-	Union of South American Nations	0	0	4	4

— ■~∀SÐFﾑｻ~■ =] ^{Babashi? antenna?} 00:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Commonwealth of Independent States? (Also, Georgia said they were leaving yesterday - possibly because of what's happening in South Ossetia - would they be included or not?) If someone wants to add them, be my guest. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read this before proposing another hypothetical way to include the EU

I believe the above posters covered most of this, but I'll throw in another take on it for anyone still reading this and thinking about it since there are obviously people who still don't understand why this is inherently flawed. Suppose every U.S. state was allowed to compete separately in the Olympics. People would cry foul about US-centrism, and rightly so, if Michael Phelps took the gold medal while competitors from the same country (as in one entry from California, one from Michigan, one from Maine, for example) took the silver and bronze. Giving a combined score for the EU here is the equivalent of doing just that, because every EU member competes as a separate entity. The EU idea would work if there was some equivalent of the Unified Team at the 1992 Summer Olympics whereby the EU members are collectively represented once in each competition - but I wouldn't hold my breath for that. Hopefully this helps put things into perspective. Thompsontough (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Thompsontough. Although in the spirit of cheeky fun, I will toss in yet another conglomerate - the former Yugoslavia (1G, 3S, 4B - and oddly enough, its final total in 1988 was 3G, 4S, 5B, so surprisingly close, there). And then again we could always go back to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense to have an EU entry in political and econmic tables, the EU being a political and economic entitiy. Sport, well, that will take a number of years if ever. The UK has been a nation for 300 years and yet we still have England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales football times! 143.167.204.116 (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, such a difference would only be relevent to the Americans, who care about the total medal count (see above, ad nauseum) rather than the rest of the world who care first and foremost about the number of gold medals an only use the silver and bronze medals as a tie breaker. So once Phelps has won, who cares who gets the silver and bronze? Once you've got the best swimmer in the pool, who cares whether you're allowed to have another one in there with him?212.124.225.66 (talk) 13:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All-time Olympic Games individual medal count

We have All-time Olympic Games medal count. Given all the talk about Michael Phelps tying others in individual medal count, any chance in someone creating the article all-time Olympic Games individual medal count? Suntag (talk) 08:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

See List of multiple Olympic gold medalists — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And, Olympic Games#All-time Olympic Games individual medal count. Suntag (talk) 08:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ESPN

Conspiracy theory: The reason why ESPN (and maybe Yahoo!) ranks by total medals instead of gold medals is to make it appear the U.S. is leading... –Howard the Duck 14:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

A little insecure in the Philipines, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.117.146 (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Phelps can mine more gold than an entire country in 200 years. –Howard the Duck 05:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

*YAWN* News outlets in the US have ranked by total medal count for as long as I can remember (at least since the 1992 Olympics, probably before). Seancp (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right - http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/fanguide/history?year=2004&type=medals 85.222.54.163 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, and I guess this falls under the category of "original research", but I remember someone raising exactly this objection about the United States during a previous Olympics. He eventually proved to me that the "Gold Centric" method is indeed the IOC and world standard, but all the American outlets I could find on Games prior to that one did show that American media ranking by total medals had been going on for quite some time. Obviously I don't have the links available to me, but this is hardly a new phenomenon.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Following the discussion here Talk:2008_Summer_Olympics_medal_count#Section_break, I'm moving/re-naming all Olympic "medal count" articles to "medal table". --Madchester (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Michael Phelps' Ranking

Michael Phelps should be ranked, seeing as how if he were a country he would be in a tie for second with South Korea, behind only China. USA loses 5 golds due to Michael Phelps declaring independence, leaving them in fourth with only 4 gold medals. Phelps does indeed retain a tie for second, since the table sorts by gold medals, not total medals, and Michael comes before South in the alphabet.

1	China (CHN)	13	3	5	21
2	South Korea (KOR)	5	6	1	12
3	Michael Phelps	5	0	0	5
4	United States (USA)	4	7	9	20
5	Italy (ITA)	4	4	2	10

Bjquinn (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you are kidding or not, but in the Olympics medals are only counted by country by the IOC.Mr.crabby (Talk) 04:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In addition, you break ties by looking at silvers, so Phelpsyvania is third. Dragons flight (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, that depends on whether you would rank the Dallas Cowboys who are 5-3 in the Super Bowl or the San Francisco 49ers, who are a perfect 5-0, higher. Phelpsyvania has a perfect record, so he remains second. The per capita medal count is staggering. Bjquinn (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

With the way that the IOC sorts (by gold, then silver to tie-break, then bronze), Phelps would be third. bluemonq (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Phelpsyvania can't be considered perfect. They didn't even qualify for most of the events. They can't get credit for failing to compete in gymnastics, judo, and weight lifting, etc. Dragons flight (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Although still very impressive, Phelps would only be ranked 5th in the medal tally not 3rd. Plus, the relay medals he won could not be considered to be solely his. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.139.57 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure... just get him to start his own country and he can have his own chart. (124.197.36.236 (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I have to ask - how does the Phelps nation win a relay medal with only one swimmer?86.13.148.178 (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If anything it could be noted under the graph, but obviously not on the graph because Phelpsyvania isnt independent (not to mention the confusion it would make). RoyalMate1 02:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Phelpsyvania isn't an independent country???!!! What a shocker! Does this mean we have to restore his gold medals back to the count of the USA-centric entity?JGC1010 (talk) 03:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Transcluding table

I've put <noinclude> tags round the parts of the article which aren't the table, to allow the table part to be transcluded into user pages, if other users want to do this. It doesn't seem to cause any problems, but if it does, feel free to revert. See my user page for an example of it in use. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Repechage

can someone make the following edit to this sentence: --> old: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class." --> new: "In boxing, judo, taekwondo and wrestling, two bronze medals were awarded in each weight class under the repechage system." -- i think it helps clarify why multiple bronze medals are being awarding in these events. 220.76.15.213 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is helpful. Repechage also exists in the rowing events but ultimately they have only a single bronze, hence repechage per se does not require two bronzes. Dragons flight (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no repechages in boxing - bronze medals are awarded to both losing semifinallists. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 08:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal winner images

Using images of medal winners on this page isn't unreasonable (provided they are free content), but I do think it is rather biased to have three of the four winners shown be from the United States and all of them be men. Some diversity would be a good thing. Dragons flight (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was having trouble finding pictures over medal winners from other countries. Some help would be good. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed with others, there are simply no other pictures at the moment. Even a search of the Creative Commons sections of Flickr has not provided us with any photos which we can use. The359 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Picture of an athlete from the host country should definitely be included. I guess we'll have to wait until the Games end to see how the medal count plays out. 70.24.139.57 (talk) 01:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the point of them all being male - I think we'll have difficulty getting pictures with both men and women as the only sport where they compete alongside is the equestrian. Otherwise there might be some "group shot" at the end of the games which would be good IMO. Witty Lama 02:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There is Mixed Doubles in Badminton, not that we'd likely find a picture for the award ceremonies for that. The359 (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It is also permissible to use free use images of athletes outside of the Beijing Games. --Madchester (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

308 events? 308 gold medals? 924 total? +- a few extra for ties?

How many medals currently have been won out of how many? This may be useful/interesting to have on the article. Thanks. Emesee (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

To this point 225 medals have been awarded. Link Blackngold29 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the event calendar on the main page for 2008 Summer Olympics, there will be 302 gold medals awarded. Kingnavland (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

maybe it should be noted as a minimum of 302 gold medals because ties could result in additional medals although unlikely Weather130 (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Judo and wrestling give 2 bronze —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 (talk) 13:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

ERROR - Can't find it.

According to the Official Beijing 2008 medal table, there have been 89 bronze medals handed out and 235 overall. We have 88 handed out and 234 overall. So I went through and compared each country's individual count and I couldn't find the discrepancy. Assistance would be appreciated. Kingnavland (talk) 03:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) TIMELOOP: Now it's a question: does the total row not update automatically? Because the 4x200 women's free was included, and the totals didn't update. I changed it to reflect the official count from the Beijing 2008 medal table. Kingnavland (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal Ranking - Everytime the same confusion in the US....

I'm really surprised here. Why are US-Americans everytime confused about the common medal rank (by gold)? Everytime they have to discover that the whole world is counting by gold medals, counting by olympic champions and not by non-champions. the whole world including the IOC is doing this, and it makes sense. Here in the discussion i can read americans posting "It is common sense ranking by total medals". Even after those posters get the information that the USA is the only country in the world counting by totals, they still believe (and post) that total medal count is "common sense". Uhm ?!? Why do they think that their American TV Stations define the "common sense" for the worldwide wikipedia medal table, and why do they believe this again and again? Do they forget it after 4 years and are surprised again or how can this be explained? 11:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, that conversation has been resolved and further discussion (especially in a rant-against-Americans format that isn't advocating any change of the current page, since your desired display is what is currently featured on the page) is highly uncalled for. This isn't a message board, it's a Talk page for discussion about edits. Scm621 (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thats exactly my point. The matter is resolved (long time ago), but every 4 years americans are confused again and start with this matter. Thats what can not be easily understood. 16:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.81.216 (talk)

Maybe because each time it's different Americans entering the debate each time? You convince individuals, not a whole country.Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have seen some news reports use the total medal ranking (ESPN for example), so that may contribute to it. But as far as WP goes there is no need to continue this discussion further, it has already been resolved. Blackngold29 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Summing the medal as if they had equal value is so blatantly wrong and disrespectful to the (gold) winners. --212.30.195.50 (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What could be done as an additional indicator of the olympic performance of a country is give a different weight to the medals and sum them up. For instance: Gold = 3, Silver = 2 and Bronze = 1 (in that case China would currently have 69+18+5=92 and the US would have 42+24+18=84) OR Gold = 5, Silver = 3 and Bronze = 1. Themanwithoutapast (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The last thing these medal table articles need is some WP:Original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold=100|Silver=10|Bronzw=1 it matches the best with the official count —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.227.194 (talk) 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

China, gold25 silver9 bronze6 =2596
United States, gold14 silver12 bronze18 =1538
Germany, gold8 silver2 bronze4 =824
South Korea, gold6 silver8 bronze3 =683

actually the most common "Points" based allocation is (3pts for Gold, 2pts for silver, 1pt for Bronze). Many accredited Sports Almanacs uses this system. In this rule China would still be on top.68.127.183.136 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An Olympic champion is an Olympic champion is an Olympic champion. The old Greeks didn't even awarded a medal to the first loser. In fact, the first loser bore the greatest shame. I won't say that losing gold is a shame, but you're still no champion. Should at the end the table be led by a country which has not even a single champion within its ranks?--Bluerisk (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.36.211.178 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Table Width

I can't figure out how to change it, but I think it would look a lot better if the Nation column were widened such that each flag, country name, and IOC code would fit on a single line. China, being on one line, looks good. United States and South Korea, being split between two lines, looks worse. Germany and Australia, with the flag on one line and the name below it, looks worse yet. There's certainly plenty of room on the page to make it possible. Alanmjohnson (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The table's width of each colums automatically adjusts to the width of the longest item in it. If this is not the case for you, it is most probably because your browser window is not wide enough. It doesn't help that at the moment (at least for my screen layout), the top of the table is above the bottom of the 2008 Summer Olympics Info-Box, which encroaches on the maximum available width for the table in a browser window. This is very likely to change in due time, though, as more text is added. --Flosch (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold Medal Count as of end of Aug 14

Just noticed that 85 gold medals have been awarded per country chart, yet medals to be awarded per your events chart shows that 87 medals should be awarded by the end of August 14. Juve2000 (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Due to bad weather, some rowing and canoeing events had to be rescheduled to day 7, including both finals in canoeing. I changed it in the main event table. (On a side note, to the other editors of this page, this also explains why those two events were listed by me, and then just rotted there. So it wasn't me mixing it up, since they were still scheduled last night. I thought I was getting old.) --Flosch (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Image is biased towards the Americans"

Like it or not, it is the only free image available that shows all three medal recipients, so it is the most appropriate for the page. And please note that the image of the medals is fair use, so its use should be minimalized to one or two articles. Besides, the current one does show a Hungarian, so is it biased towards them too? I'm curious, if we had an image that had two Brits or two Canadians, would people be so concerned about potential bias? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it just so happens that the image contains two Americans coming in 1st and 2nd place, and I bet money that it was an American that put it there. To me that is telling me that the Americans are the most successful team, which they are not. I think the photo should be taken off the article. I am British and if a saw to British people in that photo I would have the same views. In23065 (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you owe me money because I added it [3] and I'm a Canadian. You're reading too much into the image, it just shows a group of medalists. If a better one comes along, we'll add it to the page too. How about this, since you're so upset about showing two Americans, why not switch it to the cropped version that just shows Michael Phelps? Then that will just be one American. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Canadian, American, more or less the same thing. In23065 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You do remember that both countries submit their own athletes, right? In the context of the olympics (all other contexts omitted) they are NOT the same thing--Matt D (talk) 09:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Until a couple of hours ago, we could have emphasised the distinction by saying that American athletes win medals. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An image with Michael Phelps is entirely appropriate for this article, no matter what nationalistic POV you favor. (And I'm not American either.) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have to use an image that involves nations, I think we should use the 100 metres podium image, when it happens, as that is the most iconic event out of all of the events and therefore makes sense. In23065 (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

And if Tyson Gay wins that, you won't cry foul? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd argue that and say that the marathon is the most iconic event. ;) And no, I will not argue about this minor point and open another can of worms. In my opinion, the preference for an image on the page is like this:

1) A picture of the medals in close-up.

2) A picture from a mixed event (e.g. mixed doubles in Badminton, or equestrian teams), with the medals clearly visible. Badminton has the advantage of having a high chance of winners from different continents on the podium.

3) A picture of any random event, with the medals clearly visible.

Of course, the licence of the image is important, which means that the currently available medal-only image is not a very good choice. --Flosch (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, give it some time (probably until after the games) and a close-up of the medals might become available. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

When a better picture is available (preferably something showing athletes on the actual podium), it will be placed here. It is not biased if it is the only picture we have available. A picture is something this article should have, and we're using what we have. The359 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not linking to "(Country)_at_the_2008_Summer_Olympics"

In the first paragraph, The Marshall Islands, Montenegro and Tuvalu are linked to their country pages, not their respective 2008 Summer Olympics pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.4.56 (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done by [[::User:Kingnavland|Kingnavland]] ([[::User talk:Kingnavland|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kingnavland|contribs]]). (diff) Jeremyb (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hidden message

Who added that hidden message and what is the purpose? The "This list was last updated..." is completely unencyclopedic, and I feel as if that hidden note is preemptive. This chart is copied completely from the only reference and I think the only note that needs to be there is "Please do not add medals if it conflicts with the reference" or something like that.

I'll be bold and remove it, but feel free to add it if there is a legit reason for its placement there. --haha169 (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There is. Without it, even more people would just keep adding the same results without cross checking and it would become a huge mess. I agree that it's not very encyclopedic, but it's only temporary. I readded it, because it has made a huge difference from the first few days. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The first nights of the Games, we were reverting tons of good-faith edits because people were impulse-editing in the same medals 5 or 6 times, and there was mass confusion and hysteria. There hasn't been that since the message was there. It's very useful for those of us editors who have been consistently editing this page. Kingnavland (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All right then. --haha169 (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Doping

A new section and update on medal counts with this story on doping stripping the PRK medal? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/15/2336655.htm?site=olympics/2008

No update on the athelete's profile, medal standing, and official results on the Beijing 2008 site yet. --Kvasir (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have put in a paragraph, but not updated the medal standings yet. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I just checked again. No update on the official Beijing 2008 site yet. Not even in the news section. I suggest not to update the table until it is done so on the website. --Kvasir (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Should the "Changes in medal standings" section be moved closer to the top so it will match medal table articles from past Olympics? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the article is ever-changing, so we shouldn't be too concerned with matching the stylr of the other articles until after the games are finished. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Refused medal

Swedish wrestler Ara Abrahamian rejected his bronze medal in protest. He is also facing displinary charge, which could have an effect on medal count. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympics/wrestling/7563231.stm --Kvasir (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe "rejected" medals should be remove dfrom the chart, as they are still awarded and counted. No one takes his place in receiving the second bronze either. Just because he rejected it, doesn't mean his country still didn't earn it. The359 (talk) 20:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well this will depend on what the displinary action is. May work like doping cases. We'll see in the next few days. --Kvasir (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

According to Swedish television the medal is now officially revoked. --Aatox (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think we should wait for official IOC confirmation before making any changes. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The official website has removed the medal now as well. TheLeftorium 10:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that. I have added a paragraph to the changes in standings section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 10:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be there but with a "de facto" after, since no one else got the medal afterwards. He did technicly win the medal, they just withdrew it from him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.132.241 (talk) 11:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It should still be counted, he still won the bronze. He didn't cheat, so it can be "revoked" all the IOC like but he DID win it, and fairly. History is a fact and it cannot be changed. Just because the "official" tally won't include the bronze, it doesn't mean Wikipedia- which yields to the whim of no single group- should change its records. Constan69 (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

We follow the IOC tally conventions - i.e., we remove the medal. By keeping the medal in our article, we would be violating WP:NOR. History tells us that the wrestler earned a bronze, gave up his medal, and the IOC removed his placing from the record books. --Madchester (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, if the IOC has revoked it, it's off the record books. It's no different from doping. --Kvasir (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought." Meh, I'm not the only person who saw him get awarded the bronze, and it is hardly an original thought to say he got the bronze ***fairly*** too I may add. To say it's no different to doping isn't true. It isn't doping, because it wasn't doping. What I mean to say that is if somebody used performance enhancing drugs nobody would really say they should still be credited as having performed as they did, but actions that take place after an events completion clearly have no bearing on what happened before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Constan69 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The debate here is not whether or not it's the same as cheating. Medals can be revoked years after the fact as we have seen with Marion Jones. See all her Olympic medals have been removed from her wiki page. Whether or not the medal was put around the neck is irrelevant. Getting the medal is just a physical manifestation of winning a title. Without the title, the medal is meaningless. --Kvasir (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this is what parentheses and asterisks are for.72.192.189.232 (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Add to the note that was added that the IOC had the medal removed from the table, just to avoid further confusion (124.197.36.236 (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Abrahamian's medal is still on this daily result though. http://results.beijing2008.cn/WRM/ENG/INF/GL/92B/20080814.shtml i wonder if it's ever going to be removed. --Kvasir (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A vote here for use the IOC tally, add an asterisk and a footnote. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.27.230 (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

External Link

I was wondering why the external links were revised. The revisor gave no reason for this edit and the information was not redundant. I placed the United States NBC and the Great Britain's BBC medal count into external links in answer to concerns that the wikipedia page did not contain break downs for the medals. BBC gives a good list for specific events that the medals were in. NBC gives a good list of individuals who recieved medals.Omahapubliclibrary (talk) 18:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

We already have a link to the official medal count, so why do we need links to various other sources? Per WP:EL, "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum" and you don't need for or five when one will suffice. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ranking by gold medals vs. ranking by total medals

Before I start, let me first say that I am NOT proposing that this table be sorted by total medals. This argument has been beaten to death and has gotten uglier and more ridiculous than it ever should have. I think that it might be interesting to have a few sentences on the differences between the reporting of medals between American media and international media. As an American myself, I have always seen the Olympics being ranked by total medals and was surprised to find out that that isn't really done anywhere else. I think that many other Americans who browse Wikipedia might not be aware of this and may find it interesting and relavent to the article. Someone added something about that was more of an attack on Yahoo! than informational, but if we could get reliable sources that discussed the difference it could be interesting. As always it should be NPOV but would does everyone else think? And does anyone have some good sources that describe the differences? --Mr.crabby (Talk) 18:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure why that's notable. Independant sources can sort medals in any way they choose, so why should we mention it? Besides, I think saying "The American media chooses to rank by total medal count" will welcome users to add "solely so that the United States will be ranked first" or something along those lines. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's true, though. ESPN 1896 ESPN 2004 ESPN 2008 What other reason, besides to manipulate the data and America look good, would the media suddenly change the ranking system this year? Wikipedian06 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That medal table manipulation from one Olympics to another by ESPN is quite funny and quite shameless too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.202.178 (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. It'll be interesting to see if any controversey erupts if China wins the most gold and America wins the most total medals (which I would bet is going to happen), though. Only time will tell. --Mr.crabby (Talk) 19:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure it's always been the case of US media ranking by total medals: [4]. Interestingly, some predict that this will be the last Summer Olympics which we have competition for the most total medals. The Chinese are simply too strong and have such a huge pool of talent to draw from. Should be interesting to watch! 70.24.136.195 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that within 2-3 more Games there will be no more competition for total medals, either. Wikipedian06 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will add that I don't necessarily think the US wikipedians or US media is going by total medals over gold medals to make the US look better. The past two Olympics the US has won both categories so it hasn't been an issue (at least for Wikipedia). Logically one could assume a country's win was based on the total medal count since the US was ranked first in both. That and you make the logical argument that since three medals are awarded in each event, all should be counted towards a nation's win total; not just the golds. By ranking by golds, the silvers and bronzes become meaningless unless for tie breaking purposes. So I would agree with Mr Crabby's idea. Tedmoseby (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

One could also logically argue that my considering the total medal count, you can potentially hugely undervalue gold medals and even silver medals. The most credible standard (IOC) should stick. This issue has been debated to death in previous Olympics and in other pages and it's clear that there is no consensus for change for this Olympics. 76.65.22.118 (talk) 11:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that NBC USED TO rank their totals by Medal's worth (Gold as priority). It seems they have changed in this Olympics. Did they figure out that China would likely to get the most golds beforehand? Furthermore, the IOC DOES NOT HAVE a "standard". They DO NOT OFFICIALLY recognize "Medal Rankings by Country". They do not have a rule for this. I think it should be noted here. They were not really kept in the Olympic Book. I think this Medal Ranking Interest started in the Cold War (US vs USSR). Post-Soviet Olympics basically left the US as the dominant Olympic powerhouse.68.127.183.136 (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe NBC did, and ESPN definitely did: ESPN 1896 ESPN 2004 ESPN 2008

Re "figuring out": Everybody knew. The betting odds for Team China winning most golds were -250 to -300 long before the Games opened. This means the American media were able to adopt this new ranking method from the beginning of the Games to avoid any potential embarrassments. Wikipedian06 (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What potential embarrassments? China leading in gold medals and possibly taking the overall medal count doesn't mean the United States, or any country for that matter, should be embarrassed by their own results. I realize it's fashionable and hip to be in the anti-American crowd, but I think you're reaching with the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy here by ESPN or other media outlets. A glance at the medal counts from 1896 to 2004 shows the United States doing quite well. The US has participated 24 times in the Olympics (boycotting 1980), claiming the most golds 15 times. They've claimed the overall medal count 12 times as well as both the gold and overall medal count 12 times. Certainly nothing to be embarrassed about. In fact I think it's pretty amazing and a point of pride for Americans. :) I think 2008 is shaping up to be another successful campaign. For the record I agree with the standard practice of sorting by gold medals first. Carry on with the paranoia, gloating, conspiracy theories and whatever else makes you folks feet better.... Geologik (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As a proposed clarification (re)edit (to replace "standard" with a more neutral "method", try this:

"The information in this table is based on data provided by the International Olympic Committee. Following the IOC method, ranking sorts first by the number of gold medals earned by the athletes representing the country. In case of ties, the number of silver medals is taken into consideration, and then the number of bronze medals. If still tied, countries are listed alphabetically by IOC country code."

As hidden text:

"In this context, a country is an entity represented by a National Olympic Committee and recognized by the International Olympic Committee."

The purpose of this edit would be to clarify the reasoning for the ranking choice up front, and also clarifies both country recognition (see Kosovo) and that athletes representing a country are not necessarily "from" that country. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.26.216 (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Is it really asking too much to add 10 words explaining that U.S. news sources traditionally deviate from the IOC method or ranking medals??? Surely it is noteworthy mentioning this phenomenon — without passing judgement. I think it's noteworthy and interesting and would have explained a lot to me and saved myself (and editors who had to revert) a lot of work. — Deon Steyn (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like the tradition didn't exist as recently as 2004, since the ESPN site's 2004 ranking is indeed by gold, then silver,then bronze, so it may not be that much of a "tradition".--Ramdrake (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

“ This is actually very common. The International Olympic Committee and most foreign countries sort the list by most gold medals, however the US and most US sites and news sources have for years displayed the medal tally by total earned. This is simply the common way that it is displayed in the US. ” — Yahoo Sports! representative

I was going by the informal research of the other contributors (earlier in this thread) as well as the answer from a Yahoo representative when I queried their ranking:

So, perhaps "traditional" wasn't the correct word, but "typical", since it's definitely common on US sources, see NY Times, CNN, LA Times, Washington Post.

— Deon Steyn (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the point though because I'm sure there are non-American news sources that rank by total medals; and I'm sure there are American news sources that rank by gold. It's really not that notable. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's really NOT notable as the the U.S. is only one country and thus by no means deserves a mention. Also, it looks suspicious that several news outlets such as ESPN have decided to rank by total medals starting this Games. 76.71.49.176 (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Not notable in this article. Just because the IOC's medal system is not in favour of the Americans for the 2008 Summer Olympics does not make it notable. You would have to repeat this information in every medal table article making it redundant. It is already mentioned in Olympic medal rankings. --Zxcvlkj (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Aaaah, you are correct indeed (can't add it to every page with a medal table), but I hadn't seen this article before. I have add a "see also" template tag linking to this article, because I couldn't find any mention of it or wlk to it in the rest of the article. Problem solved, thank you Zxcvlkj. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

GB medals

Could someone update the GB tally to 17 with 7 golds, 3 silver and 7 bronze and move it up to 6th? Official table. 90.194.244.14 (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Image for this article

I think the image of the swimmers there is not fair to the other athletes, and doesn't really convey the medals anyway. I'm not all that great with WP's rules on copyright for images and what not. Are there any images http://images.google.com/images?q=2008%20Beijing%20Olympic%20Medals&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi <--there that will fit that could be used? -- Me^Holla! 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Like I've said many times, it's a temporary image. Eventually, a free one of the medals will become available (most likely after the games finish) and then we can use it. And no, none of those images have a free license. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The only free image that Google located using the search "2008 Beijing Olympics Medals" is [5]. --haha169 (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit the table until medals are awarded (announcement in official site)

For example, someone adds the bronze medal before the event final is held. -Ngckmax (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Golds per pop.

This probably isn't particularly suitable for the article as it's original research, but I thought people might be interested in seeing the top 5 countries but normalised per billion of population:

Country	Golds
China	21.9
United States	59.0
Great Britain	181.6
Germany	109.5
Australia	373.9

Jetekus (talk) 10:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't really reveal much as each NOC is limited to number of people they can send to each event. Therefore, a country like China with such a large population can only send the same number of athletes per event as a small country like Australia. A more telling chart would be number of golds per delegation of athletes at this Games. 76.71.50.13 (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that any medal tally that puts Australia at it's rightful place (far far in front) must be correct! Clearly this is the natural order of things and should replace the existing medal tally forthwith - NOR and V be damned! Witty Lama 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What might be more interesting is a list of the most populous countries which haven't won any medals... AnonMoos (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

India has done quite bad with only 1(at this point) gold in that sense... Still from quick check it seems that some small nations would do remarkably well this way like Slovenia with 1482.7... Rating success per athlete would be best way in my opinion. --82.203.181.186 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this info should be added... is it against Wikipedia policy to find someone who has done the research for you and add his data? Leav (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus is against adding such statistics to these medal table lists. you can find out more here and here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the LA TImes tracks this. (I don't suggest that we add it here.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times Olympics blog has a series of sarcastically-phrased articles on medals per capita (not golds per capita); apparently this is the latest: The Bahamas -- 400 meters from Medals Per Capita fame? | Olympics blog | Los Angeles Times... AnonMoos (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's some Australian guy who ranks them by population and GDP: [6]. Not really a WP:RS though. Lampman (talk) 18:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

2 Silver medals for Jamaica (Women's 100m)

I think someone should update the "Changes in medal standings" section and add some sort of explanation there why Jamaica has 2 silvers. Alpha-Toxic (talk) 15:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this notable? There have been many ties before. 76.71.50.13 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now all cases of double-medals are noted right above the medal table (right after the boxing/judo/etc exception), I'm perfectly happy with that. I did not see it there before I posted the above suggestion. In other words "case closed" Alpha-Toxic (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Gold Medal Total at end of Sunday the 17th

Is there one more event to be posted on the medal standings? Total gold medals awarded is 166 while the events chart shows total should be 167 by the end of the day. Juve2000 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Women's 100m

The women's silver medawas ruled a tie. I don't have time to find a source right now, but could someone please do so and post itJakeH07 (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned, at the top of the medals section. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No sense

1	United States (USA)	19	21	25	65
2	China (CHN)	35	13	13	61
3	Great Britain (GBR)	11	6	8	25
4	Australia (AUS)	9	10	12	31
5	Germany (GER)	9	6	6	21
6	South Korea (KOR)	8	9	5	22
7	Japan (JPN)	8	5	7	20
8	Russia (RUS)	7	12	12	31
9	Italy (ITA)	6	6	6	18
10	Ukraine (UKR)	5	3	6	14
11	France (FRA)	4	9	12	25
Total		167	168	192	527

THIS MAKES NO SENSE! Constan69 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've undone the edit that swapped the United States with China to once again rank in order of gold medals as specified. Darthveda (talk) 04:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Could anybody answer why the US is on top of the ranking now both the US and China have 67 medals in total and china has much more golden medals? I don't think it's alphabetical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.120.25.181 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Most medal tables are ranked according to the number of gold medals. Stop being sore losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.152.144.44 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably Splitting Hairs

When I was younger I would always get confused when team event winners would get multiple medals but only one would be listed on any medal chart.

The opening paragraphs state

"The 2008 Summer Olympics medal table is a list of National Olympic Committees ranked by the number of medals won by their athletes during the 2008 Summer Olympics"

"The ranking sorts by the number of gold medals the athletes from a country have earned"

This is not really correct as the medal table is a ranking of the top three finishers for each event. Whoever wins men's soccer(football) is not going to get 20+ golds in the medal table. Should this be explained somewhere on this page? Or did I miss it? Or is it not needed?72.209.246.97 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In a team event, each person, including alternates, gets a medal, but only a single event medal is counted in the rankings. For an alternate proposal re wording of the medal sort, see mine a couple of sections above. If felt necessary, the first line of this comment could be added. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.43 (talk) 01:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think something stating that teams are recorded as a single medal in the table would be good. Individuals who are not familiar with the Olympics might be confused if they see multiple medals awarded to a team of athletes during a broadcast while only one medal is shown on the table.72.209.246.97 (talk) 03:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Triathalon

I went ahead and added Men's triathlon, sorry I didn't read discussion first, but I double checked and it should be good. Basser g (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Medal ranking

Okay I've read with interest the debate above about how US publications rank the medal count differently from the rest of the world, and I thought I'd look into this to see how far this goes back. On Google News Archives I've found a report from the New York Times following the end of the 1912 Olympics see (http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07EFDF1630E233A25755C1A9619C946396D6CF "America First As Olympics End"). Curiously the ranking used here appears to be based on a point system. Although the report says that it is the conclusion of the games it says the USA had 16 "firsts", the official table shows 25 US gold medals, so perhaps the report is a bit presumptuous. It's not made clear how these points are allocated, but assuming that they are missing a few medals it looks like they might be awarding 3 points for a Gold, 2 points for a Silver and one point for bronze. I've no idea if this was IOC practice at the time or whatever and I'm not making any suggestion that this system should be used anywhere. Jooler (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ESPN 1896 ESPN 2004 ESPN 2008 Wikipedian06 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

This lists both systems, Gold ranking and total ranking on the same page, on all but the 2008 table. Curious. Jooler (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Special stats

I particularly like what we have in the 2006 Winter Olympics article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_winter_olympics#Results ) where we have stats for multiple medallists and medal sweep events. I'd like to see it as a separate section after the Medal Table. --Kvasir (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

correction?

I have noticed that the table, to equal countries (e.e. having won the same amount of the same kinds of medals) are put as 69, 69, 69, 69, etc... Shouldnt we, for equal countries, have one 69, then = signs for the rest? This would show that they are equal. Cadan ap Tomos 17:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The numbers are repeated because when sorting the table by that column, the ones with = or - would otherwise ended up grouped together either at the top or the bottom of the table. --Kvasir (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We can use {{sort|1==69|69}} for those situations, if desired. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Are we doing it then?Cadan ap Tomos 08:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Serbia????

I noticed the article states Serbia won it's first Olympic medal. This is technically incorrect, as they are considered to be the same NOC as Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. So, I have added a note saying this. Or should we take the bit about Serbia out alltogether? For now though, it will stay with a note.

I changed it to say that it was the first medal won by Serbia as an independant nation. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical error

Could someone please change "and" to "or" in the following sentence: "Therefore, the total number of bronze medals is greater than the total number of gold and silver medals." i.e. "total number of gold or silver medals." or perhaps "total number of either gold or silver medals." Das nbs (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Kim Jong Su/North Korea

I noticed that an editor has been making frequent edits to add asterisks and/or notes relating to that athlete's removed medals. Reviewing the page history, it seems multiple editors have removed that person's Kim Jong Su/North Korean additions.

First, we have a dedicated section on medal changes. It allows up to expand on the circumstances of these changes, something that can't be indicated by the medal tallies alone.

Second, adding asterisks and/or notes to the table would be considered original research. We follow IOC conventions as close as we can; its tabulation doesn't include special asterisks/notes and neither should ours. Wiki's not a primary source of information, like ESPN. It has its own "Power Rankings" to supplement official professional league standings. It also has, for example, its own Pitcher Game Scores to supplement the official MLB boxscores. And so forth. By adding our own asterisks/notes that would be changing the intended meaning of the IOC's medal table. The dedicated "medal changes" section works around that problem. We can still list any medal changes without affecting the intended meaning of the IOC's medal table/sorting system. --Madchester (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your second point is a misunderstanding of what NOR is about. The idea that annotating a table with obvious facts, particularly facts that are recounted elsewhere in the article, is in any way a violation of the original research guidelines is silly. The prohibition on original synthesis was never intended, nor is it written, to be so severe as to suggest that the table on Wikipedia must slavishly exclude any element not appearing in the IOC's table. (If you really believe that, then feel free to remove the wikilinks and host country coloring.)

That said, I do see the asterisk/note as rather redundant, and the paragraph of explanation is far more useful. So, I don't really see any need for the asterisk. Dragons flight (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

That image...

I've put it at List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Singapore's first Olympic medal as an independent nation

Should we include this note? Is it noteworthy enough? Their last medal was in 1960, but they gained independence in 1965. Back then they were still demographically under the larger umbrella nation known as "Malaya". Just a thought that it was somewhat similar to Serbia and Montenegro. ZephyrWind (talk) 13:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same situation. I think the comment about SRB was that it was the first time as an independent NOC. Singapore has always had an independent NOC (except for 1964), even when it was not an independent sovereign nation. Clarification text would be needed if this fact was added. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I would probably rephrase the Serbia part, given that "independent nation" here means differently from the meaning of "independent nation" in a political context (hence the point raised about Singapore). Perhaps something like "Serbia won its first medal competing as an independent NOC under its own flag, having previously won medals as part of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro.". Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That works. As for Singapore, I'm not sure that it's medal is as notable, as the NOC had previously won a medal in 1960. Independence was so long ago that I don't think the "first time since then" statement carries much significance. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 11:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean it actually carries more significance, since it has been so very long? As to Serbia, to start specifying here the political entity it used to be opens up a very big kettle of fish, since every new country used to be part of something else. For example, I notice no one jumped up to mention that Tajikistan previously won medals as part of the Soviet Union, and yet the relevance is the same. It is something traditionally mentioned on the main table of the country page under "Other related appearances" - isn't that enough?

It also by implication takes away from Montenegro. Makes no difference that Montenegro has not yet won a medal: several of the old Yugoslavia's medals were in team sports. We have noticed repeatedly in these discussions that the parts don't yet seem to make up the sum of the whole. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.148 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

some kind of column on table about # of events country entered (or # possible medals)?

i always look at these tables (here and other places) and am left scratching my head about those countries that win only a few medals...especially the ones with only 1 medal (be it any color). wanting some perspective, did the country enter athletes for every event? just a few? seems like a column could be added stating # events entered? or total medals possible (since in some events (e.g., swimming, gymnastics)it seems a country could sweep the event (i.e., win all three medals?) i think "total medals possible" would be a start.

i'm sure this could open yet another can of worms; i hope not.

regards.68.173.2.68 (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually I have suggested above that we have something like in the 2006 Winter Olympics article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_winter_olympics#Results ) such as mention of medal sweep events, multiple medallists and medals in most disciplines. etc. --Kvasir (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it does open a can of worms. There always seems to be this perpetual debate about how medal rankings aren't "fair", and so there are always ideas of what should be the divisor in some normalizing equation, whether that is population, GDP, and now number of entries. Well, that will never solve the problem, as there are also issues with the numerator. All medals are not equal. The most obvious example of this is team sports. Which is more impressive–a gold medal victory in a team sport, or a gold+bronze by an individual athlete in two different events? Even considering the number of entries is an issue. Team sports have a quota on the number of slots in the Olympic tournament, and an extensive set of pre-Games qualifying tournaments are played to fill those spots. It is a far more significant achievement, for example, for Mali's women's basketball team to have won the African FIBA tournament (and count as a single entry), than for the two swimmers from Mali who got to compete in the 50 m freestyle as "wildcard" (non-qualifying) entries.

I just don't understand why we can't accept the table for what it is—a simple tabulation. The List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners gives us the winners in the 302 events, and this table adds up the numbers by country. There are two possible ways of sorting, and we choose to use the one that the IOC uses. That's it. It really is as simple as that, and any "controversy" about that seems to have originated on Wikipedia, in my opinion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're the one opening up a can of worms here, Andrwsc. If I'm not mistaken, the original inquiry had nothing to do with the fairness of the rankings, but was just an observation that the table could have some more interesting and useful information. Some people might look at it and use it in their judgments of how well one country or another did, but this article does not have to address that in order to include an extra "# Events competed" or "# possible medals" column, either of which I think should actually be considered as they would contain useful information for an article such as this. KhalfaniKhaldun 17:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire talk page is filled with discussion threads that ultimately boil down to the same thing. For some reason, people don't like seeing the large powerful countries at the top of the list, and smaller nations or nations with smaller delegations at the bottom, and want some extra information added to that table to explain this "problem". I just don't see any need for anything other than the simple tabulation—the same tabulation (without extra details) that all of our WP:reliable sources for this article use. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A list of "swept" events belongs at the List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners, not here. This is a medal table, and should only include things that directly relate to the standings - changes, which nation won their first, etc. Medal sweep events, multiple medallists and medals in most disciplines are just trivial and relate to the athletes, which is why they should be in the medal winners article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry to have flamed the fire. my comment was very simple and had nothing to do with the "power" countries weighting the table. it was merely a wonderment of how many events a country entered and/or how many possible medals a country started the games. perhaps there is a wiki page where one of the adamant defenders of this page's status quo can direct me? meanwhile, i'll just continue to remain clueless about how many possible medals a country (say togo or china or usa) vied for and/or how many events in which a country participated.

i won't comment again.

regards. 68.173.2.68 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, we're not trying to scare you off! The closest thing to the information you want is on the main article itself, where the number of competitors per nation is given in parentheses after the nation's name. Also, every article's infobox ought to include the size of the delegation (e.g. "125 competitors in 12 sports"). Lastly, at the conclusion of the Games we'll probably try to finish a "Participating nations" section on each sport page, with the size of each team, and those pages also have per-sport medal tables. For example, see Weightlifting at the 2004 Summer Olympics. Keeping those two sets of numbers on the per-sport pages also provides better apples–apples comparisons. Hope this helps — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There are all kinds of interesting number-crunchings which can be done after every Olympics and world event. I always do a couple of them myself on my blog -- GDP and population -- and now via these discussions two more suggest themselves (including this one), which I will probably include this time around. This is not, however, raw data but data which I have processed against criteria I find relevant, making it interpretive, and thus original research. While I do find the results interesting and relevant, I look to Wikipedia only to provide the raw data for me to make my own manipulations. Raw data is the job of an encyclopaedia-style article. Manipulations are the job of the media, individual or mass, and of academia. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.24.148 (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion at the Reference Desk may interest you (not that I'm suggesting such calculations should be part of this article's tables). -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

IOC's medal table ranking system

Can someone kindly tell me the IOC's official table medal count? Is it based on the total number of medals won or the total number of gold medals. Here in Canada, the CTV news network places the US on top with more medals than China as does my local Vancouver Sun newspaper. But in Wikipedia's Olympic table, China is first because it has more gold medals than the US even though it has a less overall medal count (gold, silver, bronze) compared to the US. So, I wonder how does IOC resolve this problem? If 2 states had a total of 16 medals and country A has 4 gold compared to country B with 3 gold, certainly country A is placed higher on the medal count. But when the US has more total medals than China but less gold medals than China, I don't know who places first. What does the IOC say? Thank You Leoboudv (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If the text in the article doesn't explain this clearly enough, it ought to be improved. To answer your question, imagine an Excel spreadsheet. You sort by the #gold column in descending order first, then the #silver column in descending order, then the #bronze in descending order. Really quite simple. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note, Canadian media usually give the ranking by total medals to put Canada higher on the table. I think the current paragraph on the IOC ranking is good enough. --Kvasir (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Canada has no singular medal sorting scheme. The CBC and Canadian Press follow IOC conventions, while others follow the US method. Other media outlets use their own discretion to present he table. Last week the Toronto Star had the CP's medal table, but re-sorted it to follow the US total medal count style. This week, it's simply presenting the CP medal table as it is; under the IOC sorting method. --Madchester (talk) 23:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Because United States airwaves reach Canada and United States newspapers are sold in Canada, there tends to be strong consumer pressure in Canada to follow United States conventions in order to compete. There are not too many media organisations with the power or will to resist that pull, and many would argue that it should not be resisted. - Tenebris

Although the IOC does not officially endorse any ranking system, they order their tables by gold. See the medals table for the 2004 Athens Games at the IOC Web site. As you can see, China is ahead of Russia even though Russia has more total medals. Wikipedia uses the tables as provided by the IOC and does not change anything.

There is no official tally system for the medals that I'm aware of. However, for the sake of argument let's say that we arbitrarily assign 3 points for gold, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze. If we calculate, the Chinese are STILL ahead of the U.S. despite the Americans having more medals (as of August 21). Would you rather have 3 bronze medals, 2 silvers or 1 gold? The point is, it's not about quantity but quality. --71.112.145.102 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna argue, I don't really care how it's ranked; but why is emphisis placed on quality over quantity? The points system does put China ahead by 3 pts., so if the "experts" are correct in their predictions the US will pass China up eventually. It seems the silver and bronze winners should get some props too. Blackngold29 00:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality over quantity would make sense if you wanted to prove that your athletes are the best. By winning more gold medals in the events you participate in you are showing that your athletes dominate that particular sport. The U.S. dominates swimming; in fact, something like half of the medals the U.S. won in 2004 came from swimming events. China dominates in more sports, and thus, has more gold. As China has won more gold this year, I don't think anyone is going to argue their athletes were not the most talented (ignoring the allegations of cheating).--71.112.145.102 (talk) 00:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Quantity over quality? Now there is an argument I never thought I would hear in the context of the Olympics. - Tenebris

• Hello there, I think I get it now. The IOC places more weight on the number of gold medals (ie. quality) than the total number of medals. So China is first. Thank You, Leoboudv (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, does this make sense? The U.S. ranks #1 with 200 bronzes but China ranks #2 with 199 golds. - 12:40PM, 22 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.97.232 (talk)

Well, does this make sense? China rank #1 with 1 gold and the US ranks #2 with 199 silvers. This is subjective. There is no perfect system. Stop your damned whining. - Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.8.54 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to the Olympics, you're going there to win. The reason why they rank golds first is that the players are encouraged to do their best, the spirit and goal of all sports. If they rank it by total medals, well, then who gives a shit about the golds; let's just farm the bronzes instead since it's easier, never mind the silvers. There is no point in winning anymore. Then, the gold medal value decreases since the demand for more medals is higher. Thus, the Olympics is just a race for medals. That makes no sense. Plus, the U.S. ranked the medals based on golds in the last Olympic game, but changed to total medals this year. Sounds like American propaganda to me; they just can't accept the fact that the Chinese is dominating them in sports this year. Gold first, end of story.

Why bother having Gold medal matches? If you just going to count every medal equal??? Why not just stop and give the Top 3 competitors each Gold?? You see-- counting the total medals is very flawed. Its easier to understand but flawed in the sense of degrading the worth of being a Gold medalist or the Olympic Champion. I think the "Points System" is the most accurate measurement of a country's performance. But I prefer the Gold Medal Tally than the Total Medal Tally (The most flawed of the three.) But regardless I agree with the IOC not recognizing these Medal Tally's. These Tallies are just for fun. There are too many factors to consider. The reason why US topping the medal table is because they have the money, source, training facilities etc etc to succeed in the Olympics . If all the countries have equal footings then Overall Medal should be awarded every closing ceremonies. Of course that would never happen, Maybe in the future when all countries is as rich as the US but as for now Medal Tallies are just for fun.68.127.152.38 (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Here's an LA Times article: Weighing Olympic gold - Los Angeles Times... AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of bold type on medal table

Seems we have a minor edit war going over the use of boldface to highlight the winners of the most medals in each "category"; i.e. gold, silver, bronze, and total. I don't think it's necessary because it is possible to see which country is winning each "category" by simply sorting the tables. It just adds confusion, especially since it's not explained in the article what the significance of the bold face is. However, I still think it would be unnecessarily confusing even if an explanation was added. The other side of the argument is that this has been done for previous Olympic pages. Is the precedent relevant here if it's not making the table any easier to understand? Discuss. KiwiDave (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. I don't think it's particularly notable which NOC has the most gold, silver, or bronze medals. Like you pointed out, the table is sortable so boldface is unnecessary. Nirvana888 (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)