Talk:2010 Winter Olympics medal table/Archive 1

Archive 1

Schedule

Adding a daily schedule of medal events, commented out in the medal table. For Beijing 2008, there was a similar system, so that the table was updated after the conclusion of each event. Writing up some rough instructions on how to update after each medal event. --Madchester (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Madchester. Everyone, please make sure when you update, you update the entire table, including moving nations up and down the table. Thanks! Kingnavland (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I decided to put the "updated after" event in the main article, figuring that people would be less likely to erroneously double-count if it was staring them in the face that the event in question had already been included. Kingnavland (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Wikipedia have an automatic process to update the medal table, every 5 min. from 09:00 PST to 23:00 PST, from 02/12 to 02/28. If you like, I can do the same for English Wikipedia. --JoaquinFerrero (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A Gentle Request

Please, please, please update the entire page when you update after the conclusion of an event. This entails editing the 1) the actual medals gained for each country on the different rows of the table; 2) the total medal count at the bottom of the table; 3) moving the countries up and down on the table - they don't move automatically; and 4) the note in the hidden section stating for which event the table has been updated last. If editors do only one or two of these steps, it causes havoc and panic for other editors trying to figure out what needs to be fixed. Thanks! Kingnavland (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the table

It would be interesting to add a column, indicating the ratio of medals received to that nation's population, and/or to the # of athletes participating in these Olympics (the downside to the latter is that nations participating in team sports, such as hockey, have numerous atheletes vying for only one medal). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.240.1 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Medals per capita is a suggestion raised on every other medals page, and is universally rejected. 118.90.111.144 (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just visited wikipedia to find data about medals per capita. I couldn't find it, but I found this discussion and I strongly agree with "unsigned" that "medals per capita" should be added (in a separate table or in the main table doesn't matter). The reasons is very simple: A lot of people seem to be interested in that information.

I have read the reason for rejection of such information in the Talk:All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table, and that rejection was based on the opinion that such information is "nonsense" because there are other factors that are at least as influential. A quote of part of the reason for rejection: "Then you could do a list of the relation of medals to richness, average feeding or even education - all facts which are at least as influential as the number of population. (Well and thats my opinion - very interesting to know would be the standard of chemistry in a Country)". However, I do not think that objective data that a lot of people seem to be interested in should be rejected from Wikipedia on the basis of an opinion that claims the data to be "nonsense". Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia, it should not reject data because of personal opinions. Such criticism could be presented in a "criticism" section of the article though. Furthermore, the above quoted claim that such data is "nonsense" does not even deal with the data itself, but refers to other types of data. Meeting that argument is simple - if a lot of people seem to want information about "medals per average feeding", such data could be added as well. However, a google search for "medals per average feeding" returns 0 results while a google search for "medals per capita" returns 4,170,000 results. If the data keeps being rejected for personal opinions, there are a lot of other pages that could be deleted with similar reasoning, such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita (i.e. "because GNI is better than GDP") and List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita (i.e. "because there are a lot of other influential gases"). /David

83.233.152.179 (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: I do no longer agree, since this would violate the "No original research" policy WP:NOR. See the comments below about this. /David83.233.152.179 (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the per capita column should be added because this is exactly how people in smaller countries compare themselves to the rest of the world. The purpose of any kind of ranking is comparison, why deny a different perspective? The fear that soon we'll be comparing "medals per average feeding" is pure demagogy. Lists that only count the total number of medals may be sufficient/satisfactory in countries like the US or China; however, for people in places like Australia (where 25 million English speaking Wikipedia users live) and Norway such lists are pretty meaningless. --Vihelik (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea, but I would prefer a "per participants" number. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to prefer "medals per participant" to "medals per capita", but I do not understand why you prefer that? My reason to prioritize "medals per capita" to "medals per participant" is simply because many more people seem to want that information. Googling for "medals per participant" only gives 15 results. In other words; I do not reject your idea, but there are much better grounds to add "medals per capita" than "medals per participant". /David (I wrote the section above from 83.233.152.179 as well) 83.233.152.179 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I noted the drawback to a "per participants" tally in the original comment, in that nations with participants in team sports would show an unbalanced ratio; I.e., a nation's hockey team sends numerous representatives/athletes, who in the end, at best, will earn only one medal total. It would thus be appropriate only to count a hockey team as one "participant". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.176.240.1 (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, my feeling is that per participant would give me something closer to the "quality" of the nations efforts (that´s what I´m personally after). What you say of teamsports is true, but I see more of this (with per capita) if for example Kenya (40 miljon people) sends three athletes, and wins 3 medals. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE - While there are many ways to express medals/capita (or participant); there is no method recognized across the media at the same level as the basic gold medal sort (and total medal count). Expanding the table gives undue weight to a system that's been proposed, but not uniformly implemented worldwide.

WP:NOR - to derive said calculations ourselves would be original research. We'd have to decide whether it's golds/capita, total medals/capita, how many decimal places of rounding are needed; which source to use for the population totals, etc....... Said medals per "Variable X" articles have been nominated for multiple AFDs and deleted everytime for violating our original research policy

Feel free to create said tables on your own user page; but they're not appropriate for an article. --Madchester (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are devastatingly good points. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about the "No original research" policy is undisputable. Now, I do no longer support adding this information to Wikipedia as long as it doesn't have a reliable external source. However, if such a source appears, I will probably be in favor of adding it. /David 83.233.152.179 (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be possible to include in the table expandable boxes under the individual countries that would let you see the names of the athletes and the sport they medaled in for that country? Expandable so that in a quick look you could see the entire list of countries and medals, yet if you wanted to find the more in depth material, you could do so on this page. Thnaks 69.129.145.181 (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Top non-medal finishes

I thought I remembered a table on Wikipedia with the number of first- through tenth-place finishes for each country in Beijing, rather than just first, second and third. Now I can't find it, and I think I may have been mistaken. Does anybody know of such a table?

If there isn't one, it might be good to add one. I know this is less important than a medal table, but it would still be good information to have, probably in a separate article. 82.124.110.89 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue with an article like that is why stop at 10th position? Why not carry on to 20th? 30th? 40th? It would be virtually impossible to justify such an article. Basement12 (T.C) 14:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:OLYCON decided against Top 5/6/8/10/20/etc. finishes. You can find individual finishes at each country's olympic article and/or the individual event articles themselves. --Madchester (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with having this information available in a separate article? I can understand not wanting to clutter medal count articles with this information, but why would anybody be against having an additional article of this kind? The WP:OLYCON page begins by saying that it concerns conventions for medal count pages. What I'm talking about would not exactly be a medal count page.

Also, I think that having information like this scattered across articles is not the same as having it all in one place.

As for why we should stop at 10th place, I don't know. Certainly the question of where to stop would be based on what's practical to include in Wikipedia.82.124.110.89 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How about an "Olympic Certificate" table. Each of the top 8 finishers receives a Congratulatory Certificate. I'm sure it's suitable for framing. I wonder how many of those are hanging over fireplaces of parents' homes. Anyway, there was a semi-official points-ranking system; I think it ended in the 1980's. The gold medallist received 10 points. 2nd through 6th received 5,4,3,2 and 1 points, respectively. This would surely benefit Canada, as we have a rich history of completing 4th. 174.7.81.49 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Extra bronze medal?

There was no bronze medal awarded in one event, so why are there as many bronze medals as gold medals? --174.113.197.134 (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Because bronze has already been awarded for the women's hockey competition, while the gold-medal game has yet to be finished. The same thing will happen with the curling and men's hockey events. :) Kingnavland (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, that makes sense. And there I was, adding up the medals to see where it went wrong. --174.113.197.134 (talk) 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Caption

The caption for the top picture does not mention the countries of the medalists, unlike the captions for the other picture. Could this be fixed? (In the same order as the picture - silver - Slovenia, gold - Austria, bronze - United States.) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.3 (talk) 06:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's done on purpose to avoid claims of "bias" towards a certain nation. We ran into that problem with the 2008 medal table. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The three captions should be treated consistently. We shouldn't be fostering an editorial policy designed to appease people who bear an animosity toward a particular nation (like perhaps Slovenia, in this case). My prefence would be to remove all references to nations from the captions because that seems like what 2008 generally does. But in the other viable alternative would be to add the nations to the first caption. --JamesAM (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the biggest problem in 2008 was the addition of an image with three Americans on the podium; at the time it was added (again IIRC) it was the only image on the page, and accusations of pro-American bias were made. Regarding this page, there are currently 9 athletes pictured, representing 8 countries; I don't think bias should be an issue here, but we should be consistent within this article. I would go ahead and add the countries to the first image caption, but I'll wait and see if there are any other opinions. Wine Guy~Talk 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking number

I like that you can change the table according to gold, silver, bronze and total medal ranking, but is there a way for the ranking number to change as well? As it is, you have to count by hand to figure out a country's ranking in a category other than gold medals. Funnyhat (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea for new Olympic Medal Table Pages

Hi Everyone!

I am not very experienced in editing Wikipedia articles so I thought I would post this idea to get everyones help with this.

I was thinking it would be a good idea to have a "Country Olympic Performance" page, with a few sections including (but not limited to) Memorable Moments, Major Upsets, and Medal Standings

For example:

Canada's Olympic Performance
Memorable Moments
2010
- Joannie Rochette gets Bronze after mothers death
- First time Canada won Gold on home soil
- Record breaking year for total medals at a Winter Olympics (previous is Turin, 2006)
- Record for most Gold medals won at a Winter Olympics for a host Country (previously USA, 2002, 10 gold medals)

2006
- Cindy Klassen 5 medals in one Olympic Games

Major Upsets
2006
- Mens Hockey Defeat

Medal Standings
Here would be a list of all the Olympics Canada has participated in (Summer & Winter) with the following table headings (again not limited to)

- Year
- Summer or Winter
- Host
- Overall Rank (by total # of medals)
- Number of Gold
- Number of Silver
- Number of Bronze
- Total

So for the USA page Michael Phelps would be listed under Memorable Moments, for the Netherlands Sven Kramer would be listed under Major Upsets etc...

What are your thoughts? Any other suggestions?

Elzinga.byron (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think you might find what you are looking for on pages such as Canada at the 2010 Winter Olympics, United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Netherlands at the 2006 Winter Olympics etc. for specific games; and similarly United States at the Olympics, Canada at the Olympics etc. for more general histories of any given country's Olympic participation. Wine Guy~Talk 12:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yes those pages are basically what I was thinking about. I could find the country at specific Olympics (since they are linked from the specific Olympic) but I did not see the general Olympic pages. Thanks and Sorry. Elzinga.byron (talk)12:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New medal table row template

I propose to introduce a new template: Template:Medal table row or Template:Medals or something like that. Template:RankedMedalTable should be amended accordingly. — Christoph Päper 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This is most certainly an example of undue weight of a system not commonly used. There will be significant opposition if you try to impose that here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Putting rank in there is probably WP:UNDUE, but letting everyone sort a table the way they like most certainly is not. — Christoph Päper 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you object to the word "Rank". Many reliable sources (such as the official report of the 2002 Games, published by the Salt Lake Organizing Committee) use exactly that word in their medal tables, which are ranked as we do here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the discussion above? Some prefer Gold first, some Total, the relevant body, i.e. the IOC prefers neither, so shouldn’t WP. Electronic media can satisfy both camps (and more), here using ‘sortable’. — Christoph Päper 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have. I have also participated in the same discussions in 2004, 2006, and 2008. Have you read those? Do you not see the consensus for using the current medal table method on hundreds of Wikipedia pages? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.

1. Why have these particular weightings been chosen? Why stop at three different weightings? Why not four or five or more?

2. This makes the table much more complicated for updating - the code looks terrifying. The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not just people who can understand a mess of code.

3. If people want to do their own ranking systems, they can do so in their userspace. People are perfectly capable of doing maths and multiplying different numbers by 3 and 4 and 5 - if they can't, they can just punch it into the Almighty Google and the computer will do it for them. Kingnavland (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

ad 1. Those are the ones mentioned in Olympic medal table. All have been used by local media, it’s just natural to choose the one favoring your team (and this is not necessarily about the Top10 where the weighting systems hardly give different results).

ad 2. The Template actually makes it easier, because users don’t have to update the Total column anymore (but still the sum row at the bottom). Look at Example, not Code. The full code is only visible on the Template page and wouldn't be edited. (Of course remove the User space stuff.)

ad 3. How do you enter full tables into Google’s search field? Why should n people do something n+m times when 1 time at WP would have helped them all? Note that WP results show up first on Google. — Christoph Päper 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: I’ve made {{RankedMedalRow}} which simplifies your life a bit, because it automatically calculates the total count (1:1:1 weighting) and otherwise basically gives the same result as before except for some horizontal alignment.

I’ve also made {{WeightedMedalTable}} and {{WeightedMedalRow}}, which include automatic 3:2:1, 4:2:1 and 5:3:1 weighting for those who like it. If collapsing worked for table columns, I would have used it to hide the weighting by default. In fact {{WeightedMedalTable}} already does contain the code, although of course it doesn’t work. See you in two years.

I still don’t get why people revert me for removing the predefined sort on rank (using the 3-letter NOC code instead). The IOC does not sanction it really and there are at least two common types, why should WP favor one of them when everybody can sort the way they like? — Christoph Päper 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

{| {{RankedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed|nation-width=12em|caption=Medal table for the 2010 Winter Olympics, participating NOCs without any medal won are not included}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUS| 2| 1| 0|13}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUT| 4| 6| 6| 9}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|BLR| 1| 1| 1|17}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CAN|14| 7| 5| 1|host=yes}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CHN| 5| 2| 4| 7}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CRO| 0| 2| 1|21}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CZE| 2| 0| 4|14}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|EST| 0| 1| 0|25}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FIN| 0| 1| 4|24}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FRA| 2| 3| 6|12}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GBR| 1| 0| 0|19}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GER|10|13| 7| 2}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|ITA| 1| 1| 3|16}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|JPN| 0| 3| 2|20}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KAZ| 0| 1| 0|25}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KOR| 6| 6| 2| 5}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|LAT| 0| 2| 0|23}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NED| 4| 1| 3|10}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NOR| 9| 8| 6| 4}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|POL| 1| 3| 2|15}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|RUS| 3| 5| 7|11}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SLO| 0| 2| 1|21}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SUI| 6| 0| 3| 6}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SVK| 1| 1| 1|17}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SWE| 5| 2| 4| 7}}
{{RankedMedalRow|2010 Winter|USA| 9|15|13| 3}}
{{RankedMedalRow|         |total|86|87|85}}
|}
{| {{WeightedMedalTable|class=wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed|nation-width=12em|caption=Medal table for the 2010 Winter Olympics, participating NOCs without any medal won are not included}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUS| 2| 1| 0}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|AUT| 4| 6| 6}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|BLR| 1| 1| 1}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CAN|14| 7| 5|host=yes}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CHN| 5| 2| 4}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CRO| 0| 2| 1}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|CZE| 2| 0| 4}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|EST| 0| 1| 0}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FIN| 0| 1| 4}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|FRA| 2| 3| 6}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GBR| 1| 0| 0}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|GER|10|13| 7}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|ITA| 1| 1| 3}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|JPN| 0| 3| 2}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KAZ| 0| 1| 0}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|KOR| 6| 6| 2}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|LAT| 0| 2| 0}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NED| 4| 1| 3}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|NOR| 9| 8| 6}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|POL| 1| 3| 2}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|RUS| 3| 5| 7}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SLO| 0| 2| 1}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SUI| 6| 0| 3}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SVK| 1| 1| 1}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|SWE| 5| 2| 4}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|2010 Winter|USA| 9|15|13}}
{{WeightedMedalRow|         |total|86|87|85}}
|}

I would suggest {{WeightedMedalTable}} and {{WeightedMedalRow}} be immediately nominated for deletion. They are based on entirely arbitrary weightings and serve no purpose. Basement12 (T.C) 16:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

USA also broke the most brozze record

I have just looked back as far as the 1980 winter games, and I;m pretty sure the USA has also broken the record for the most brooze medals won by any nation in a winter games. A minor detail, but nevertheless one that needs to be mentioned and confrimed. Forgive my spelling, its very late here on the east coast now. Congrats to all NOCs on a great olympic games! --72.145.141.250 (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Germany, which had the pervious record for the most brooze in a winter games, still manage to keep the most silver at a winter games, which is 16. Mite be worth noting as well. --72.145.141.250 (talk) 08:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

most 3rd place finishes ... nice, most 2nd place finishes nice ... better mention who has the most 11th place finishes at the olympics, I think it's Zimbabwe ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.56.86.35 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; impressive. 'Most of the first and second losers'. HalfShadow 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Canada tying record for most gold (but 13 / 84 is little compared to 13 / 37)

Canada tied Norway's 2002 and USSR's 1976 record for most gold medal at a Winter Olympic Game. It is not yet written on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.90.45 (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Now the page says: "Canada also tied the record of the most gold medals won at a single Winter Olympics, of 13 set by the former Soviet Union in 1976 and Norway in 2002." But that's a rather ridiculous comparison - in 1976 there were only 37 gold medals in total, today there are 84. 13 / 84 is little compared to 13 / 37. My17cents (talk) 11:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

So I guess one should either delete this statement, or mention how many gold medals one could really collect at the various Olympics being compared here. My17cents (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The media, at least in Canada, will certainly make a big deal of this, especially if they win gold in the men's hockey making the count a new record of 14 gold.

Although media hype is not very notable, some people will probably com to this page looking for information about this. It would not hut to mention it, with the additional note that the comparisons are not very valid for a few reasons.

In 2002, Norway won 13 of 80 gold medals. In 1976, the USSR won 13 of 37 available gold medals. On the other hand, the USSR at that time was made up of regions that split into 15 different countries, 14 of which participated in the 2010 games. As the nation with the largest talent pool to work with, their medal performance is not very surprising. Of course, I would never mention that the use of undetected performance enhancements that may have been against the rules would have anything to do with it. ;)

It may be worth noting that the Canadian medal performance was due to the "Own the Podium" program, which dedicated most of the training resources to those athletes who were believed to have the best chance of winning, to the detriment of athletes who were not deemed medal-hopeful. The obvious success of the program will probably change the way that other countries support their athletes in future games. Kid Bugs (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Such comparisons and questions about the validity of the gold medal "record" might be worth noting if, and only if, they are discussed in reliable sources and are therefore verifiable. Otherwise this is original research, even if it may be interesting. Wine Guy~Talk 19:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the facts. Gold: Soviet Union 13/37, Norway 13/80, Canada 14/86. Total: US 37/258. My17cents (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOR, WP:RS - Media sources don't mention Country A earned X medals in Y events in Vancouver - they simply mention Country A earned X medals in Vancouver. The media haven't made your observation about the relationship between total golds/medals vs. total events over time. While it's true.... it's not verifiable by any reliable source and is original research at best --Madchester (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point about original research. But this sounds as if all you need is a journalist friend who mentions these "facts" in some newspaper, then you can cite it, and everything is ok? The cited Washington Times source says: "The United States is guaranteed 37 medals and Canada will finish with at least 13 gold medals. Both are the best of these games and part of the greatest hauls ever at a Winter Olympics." But of course these "greatest hauls" look pretty meager when compared to the Soviet haul of 1976, simply because today there are more than twice as many medals. Since the Washington Times does not mention this, its text is spin-doctored POV, isn't it, but we can cite it nevertheless. Ah, maybe some journalist out there will read this and mention the facts in a sentence in one of his articles, then we can cite it. My17cents (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ranking

The ranking for medal standings is traditionally and technically based on total medals, then by total golds, total silver, and total bronze. I attempt to correct this error, though my skills are not great. If the ranking isn't corrected, then could someone who does have the skills make the correct changes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.200.171 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't make the change because it's sorting based on the "Rank" column. Your method of ranking is correct based on IOC rules, however I believe that the American media sort it based on total number of gold medals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I am American, and I can assure you that our media has always ranked it by total medals. 68.62.16.149 (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done some further research and it shows that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) does not actually rank nations themselves. They, for the purpose of creating a list put countries based on their gold, then silver, then bronze totals. BUT, this IS NOT A RANKING! If you go to the IOC website, they refer the the website of the games themselves for reference information. If you look at the Vancouver official website for a reference of the ranking (as is the reference at the bottom of this article's page) the official website (http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-medals/) ranks the nations first based on their TOTAL medals, then within their rankings they're listed in order based on their gold, silver, and bronze totals. This, if we're going to use a ranking table based on an actual reference, should be the system used for the ranking table in this article. The table will be changed as such. If there is an argument regarding this, please post in discussion before changing the article. This way we can come to a consensus and update the article at that point.Brendan OhUiginn 05:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talk • contribs)

If by no other reason, all previous wiki medal rankings pages have been sorted by gold, silver, then bronze; with silver being a tie-breaker for gold medals, bronze for gold and silver, and total medals if no other tie-breaker can be used. --Zimbabweed (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the previous medal rankings have been done this way, but there is no reference for this. And if we are to be neutral in our references then using the official Vancouver Olympic rankings would be appropriate. Also, the previous rankings were based on the IOC's listing, but the IOC does not actual RANK nations. They simply make a list. They officially do not post any rankings. So this would be an error in referencing.Brendan OhUiginn 06:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohuiginn (talk • contribs)

1. The IOC sorts by gold medals for infomrational purposes; but does not take an official position on the issue. See Olympic medal table and Rogge's statement on the issue from Beijing 2008.
2. The Vancouver2010 site actually sorted by gold for the first 2/3 days of the Games; the webmaster switched to medal sort sometime after the mens' moguls event. --Madchester (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, see the IOC's Offical Reports for past Olympic Games; the medal tables are sorted by golds. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

At the beginning, it looked better for canada to rank by gold... then they realized it look better (for them) to rank by total so they switched. Like madchester said, the "Olympic medal table" page say the IOC usually rank by gold. The vancouver website isn't an objective source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.61.52 (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It is probably better to sort by total medals, then by gold, silver, and bronze. Take a look at the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. Georgia (3 gold, 0 silver, 3 bronze, 6 total) is ranked above Cuba (2 gold, 11 silver, 11 bronze, 24 total)? Doesn't make sense. Anyone in their right mind would say Cuba's 2008 Olympic performance easily rivaled Georgia's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.222.207 (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No matter what system is used, there will be odd corner cases that seem to make little sense. But if you want to sort by total medals, you are essentially saying that the only difference between a gold medal and a bronze medal is as a tie-breaker. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to further argue whether it makes more sense to rank by gold first or Total first (since it's more than obvious that ranking by total first makes more sense, and gives more information as to the overall performance) however, if we're going to use the IOC's LISTING system, then we should not use a table that uses the word RANK in it's header. This is NOT a ranking if it's based on the IOC system it's just a listing. Therefore the table template that should be used is Template:ListedMedalTable.--Brendan OhUiginn 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We have used the current ranking method on WP:WikiProject Olympics pages for years, based on consensus, and more importantly, based on reliable sources. The BBC, for example, also use the IOC system for their medal standings. There are about several hundred, maybe a thousand, pages on this Wikipedia that consistently use the same method. It would be foolish beyond belief to change all that based on personal preference, fueled by nationalism. We created Olympic medal table in 2008 to help explain the issue, so perhaps any further discussion should go on that talk page instead of here, which would reek of recentism. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The Official Vancouver 2010 website, the most reliable source possible, which is supposedly being used as a source here ranks by total medals. Who cares what the BBC does? Since when are they an official source for the Olympic games? Just because we have been doing something wrong for years is no reason to continue doing so. Wine Guy~Talk 03:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The sites for each Olympic Games website publishes the medal table at the discretion of its organizing comittee's webmaster. i.e., when the Games are held in North America, they do medal count; elsewhere its always gold-first. It's discretionary at best. The Van2010 site was using a gold-first method up until the men's moguls on Day 2 - then switched to the North American medal count style thereafter.

If we want to be official then we go by the medal table that will be published in the IOC's Vancouver 2010 Official Report. That will only be published months after the Games have been completed. The Official Report have historically been released with said tables with a gold-first method. If we want to be official to a tee, we technically shouldn't have any medal tables on the Vancouver 2010 games until said report has been made public. --Madchester (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You could argue that the VANOC site might be the best source for this page, but this page is one of several hundred pages with ranked medal tables on this Wikipedia. Clearly we need to have consistency across all our Olympic articles; they do not stand alone in isolation from each other. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be sorted by total medals, who says 2 golds are better than 1 gold, 10 silvers, and 12 bronzes? CTJF83 chat 03:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So you think four bronze are better than three gold? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point, which I guess flaws my theory. And to answer, no, I'd say 3 golds are better than 4 bronzes. CTJF83 chat 05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. And I guess that's the point I was trying to make, albeit with a terse rhetorical question. No matter what system is used, you can cite medal count examples that are illogical. The important thing, therefore, is to choose one system and use it consistently everywhere. That's what we've done already. We chose the IOC system because it seems to have the most neutral POV and the most history behind it, and we explain how that system works in the prose text of all of the per-Games medal table pages. And we also created the Olympic medal table article to mention other systems. I think we have the most encyclopedic treatment of this issue as possible. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Realistically there are two issues here. Whether we should be using the IOC system or not isn't too hard to understand. They're the international governing body for these events. So we should use their system. The problem is that people see these tables as a ranking of the nations medal standings. Which is NOT what the IOC system or information is presenting. The tables use the word RANK when the table that the IOC presents isn't actually ranking these nations in any of the cases, historical and current. So we should be using the table Template:ListedMedalTable. We should not be presenting incorrect information. --Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. The dictionary definition of "rank" is a relative standing or position, or an orderly arrangement. How is that different from what we're doing with these tables? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the IOC does not rank by medal colour. The link provided is not from the IOC but from something called the LA84 Foundation, with the permission of the IOC. It's an American ranking.

This argument was made for the 2006 Winter Olympics talk page and it was decided to use NBC's method of counting medal totals.

If someone can find an actual statement from the IOC on how the medal counts should be sorted, then we should use that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Actually see WP:OLYCON for the discussion that actually occured druing and after the 2006 games (i.e., arguments for gold-sort as Wiki's standard convention).
2. Also, review the actual IOC official reports on the link. The website is just hosting the reports; don't know where you see them making claims about an "American ranking", when they don't make any such claims whatsoever. It's only the PDF files that are of importance here. --Madchester (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So, let's remove the Rank section and just list by total medals. CTJF83 chat 05:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the IOC sorts by gold medals. Review Volume 1 of the 2006 Winter Olympic Games Official Report; click on the Medal Table heading, i.e., pg 348. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you explain http://www.vancouver2010.com/ ranking by total metals and linking from http://www.olympic.org calling it the official website. CTJF83 GoUSA 05:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1. The medal table for each Olympic Games is sorted at the discretion of the local organizing committee's webmaster. (If you see the copyright at the bottom of the vancouver2010 site, it says "© 2010 The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games"...i.e., the site's content is not from the IOC, but rather the local organizing committee) So when the Games are held in North America, they sort by total medals. Everywhere else, it's gold first. However, we go by the IOC standard (not that of the Vancouver organizing committee), and when you review the IOC's Official Reports, all medal tables use a gold-first method, even those held in North America.
2. And as I mentioned previously, the vancouver2010 site sorted with the standard IOC gold-first method up until the Men's moguls on Day 3. Search for a cached version of the site, and you'll see that's the case. --Madchester (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The committee will sort it out the way that makes canada place higher in the rankings, its the host countries discretion to look better129.215.113.85 (talk) 09:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The final word on this is that Wikipedia's editors have come to a consensus on this and it is what should be used here despite personal or supposed national preference. According to http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856271893833843.html, and several other articles I've read recently, the IOC unofficially endorse "gold-first ranking", which is what is used on Wikipedia. Officially, "According to the Olympic Charter, 'The IOC and the OCOG (the local Organizing Committee of the Olympic Games) shall not draw up any global ranking per country.' Instead, the host stadium is supposed to display a 'roll of honor' of the individual winners." (emphasis mine). I suspect that's why my request for the official Olympic ranking was never answered (and no, that PDF is still made by an American country based on the official results of the events, it's not an official IOC report). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, those are official IOC Reports; they're merely being re-hosted in digitized form at the LA Foundation with permission from the IOC. If you want the hard-copy, paper versions you have to contact the IOC directly. --Madchester (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I read them as official IOC results prepared by an American company since the IOC officially does not keep medal rankings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to read them more carefully. This is not difficult; each Games organizing committee (VANOC, TOROC, SLOC, etc.) publishes their report back to the IOC. They are distinct organizations from the IOC. As for the LA84 Foundation, their only involvement is that they digitize the published paper reports and host the PDF files on their website. It certainly isn't their content within each of those PDF files! The TOROC report from 2006, for example, is published by the "Organising Committee for the XX Olympic Winter Games Torino 2006", and the document also says that it was printed by "Lineastampa, Milano" in October 2006. So how can you say that the medal table (on page 348 of volume 1) was "prepared by an American company"? I am baffled by your inability to understand all this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the patronizing comment. This is nothing more than an American company publishing results. Since you understand that the IOC does not officially sanction medal counts, it's not an IOC format. I am baffled by your inability to understand this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

De jure - no medal tables; but for de facto purposes the IOC still produce medal tables for informational purposes. Review this article.

Also, those are the official IOC reports - just digitized for public consumption by the LA84Foundation. The site even states that they were republished with the permission of the International Olympic Committee If you look at other pages listing or selling said IOC reports (olympic-museum.de, Sporstpages, etc....) they look no different than said PDF copies availabe at LA84Foundation. --Madchester (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Mu. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I never understood why we use these controversial total medals or total golds systems that are technically inaccurate. A much better system, used by the New York Times, is to assign point values: 4 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze. The only problem being that this would conflict with all the previous tables and require substantial re-editing. However, I am certain this would not be the first time that Wikipedians re-edited that much information. Metallurgist (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think that using a newspaper's ranking system would be just a bit controversial as well? That's why we follow the IOC's system. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE. The NYT proposed the system in 2008, but it's not being practiced in 2010 by the NYT, let alone the rest of the global media. A brief mention about this proposal in the Olympic medal table is more than sufficient. --Madchester (talk) 18:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am just stating an example of a source that is (or apparently had used it. The only reason it is not prevalent is because not many people have considered it yet and the total golds/total medals ranking systems have been the tradition. I dont see why Wikipedia cant pioneer this. We have been the first on things before. By the way, I think it is stated above that the IOC does not have a ranking system. Metallurgist (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven’t been following the current Games, just looked for a quick statistics update. I noticed that this page was showing medal count but without any weighting. Olympic medal table lists the three most obvious methods, 3:2:1, 4:2:1 and 5:3:1, which have been used in the media (often as they fit to make the national team look better). So I took the five or ten minutes to include this data. (My country’s team was at the top anyhow, so that’s not a reason for me.) Alas, Madchester deleted it without a comment. I know, people won’t update it correctly, so I shall include it again on Sunday after all competitions have finished. The beauty of computers is that everybody can sort the table as they prefer. This additional info really does no harm. On a related note, since the IOC doesn’t rank countries neither should we, i.e. the first column should be abolished.

Per capita or per participant tallies are of much lower usefulness and should not be included, though. — Christoph Päper 21:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really want to see the medal total for all countries, its not that hard to do. Just click the top of the total medal article. I think that it is ranked Gold first for a good reason, because the gold medalist is the person that won and in almost everyother sport the winner is the country that is given credit. Furthermore, if you give every medal equal value it seems very unfair for those the get 4th place. I think this debate will come up every Olympics based on people from countries that have higher medal totals with less gold medals. Bennyj600 (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree we should use the total medals instead of who has the most Gold medals. that Cuba and Georgia situation just proved it and it has always bothered me since the 2008 Olympic Games. We can't just allow our laziness to overpower what's right and wrong. Str8cash (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless the IOC changes its sorting system (in its official reports)... there's no question how the sort should be done. Weird how this is brought up again, just after Canada takes the gold medal lead. --Madchester (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's amusing, really. I note that at the last Games held in the USA (Salt Lake 2002), the organising committee used the gold-first ranking in their official report. And do you remember the "Silver is the first loser" posters in Atlanta? So now that the USA has more silver and bronze but fewer gold (both in Beijing and in Vancouver), the Americans want to consider all medals equal, except to break a tie. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I'm an American and think the medals should be sorted per the IOC. Total medals, most golds, population density arguments are brought up every two years. It's just how it goes. Besides, it's easy enough to sort by total medals to see who really owns the podium. ;) Geologik (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the Canadians own the middle part of the podium, and the Americans own the left and right sides. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, however you kids need to spin things. *thumbs up* I understand it's a common tendency with you Olympic WikiProject folks. Carry on I say, carry on! Rah Rah Rah! Geologik (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"Kids"? I'm actually more than 11 Olympiads old... ;) — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice Canada overtook the Gold count, i thought the USA was still tied with Germany with 8 but i'm off haha. Most people disagree with the Medal Table and i don't think it has anything to do with the USA... or maybe it does... just my opinion. Str8cash (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with having the default setting be the "gold first" system for three main reasons: (1) it's how the IOC lists medal tables, (2) it's consisted with wikipedia's past practice, and (3) the table's sortability allows readers to view the table by total medals as well. That being said, I think editors expressing anti-U.S. sentiments here should lay off the U.S.-bashing, assume good faith, and focus on the merits of the arguments. Some editors inject derogatory remarks about the U.S. when discussed certain content/proposals, but seem to have no difficulty refraining from bashing other nations. For instance, there was a proposal to add a per capita ranking (proposed by a U.S.-located IP - even though it would probably disadvantage the U.S.). In spite of its high medal count, the U.S. was ranked fourth in "gold first" sometime on Feb. 17 (by time stamp). Then, on Feb. 18, the U.S. surged to first by the "gold first" standards. On that same date, a Sweden-located IP writes in favor of per capita. The next day a Swedish-named editor favors per capita or per participant. The result of those proposals would make Sweden's showing look better and the U.S. worse, but the editors bashing the U.S. did not make any of those accusations or sarcastically comment that the proposals was "conveniently" promoted just after the U.S. took the gold first lead. The first photo (which includes an American medalist) does not mention nationality in its caption. The second photo was added by an English editor. It depicts the U.K.'s only medalist of the Games and its caption refer to her nationality. The photo with the U.S. athlete remains the only one on this page with a caption that doesn't refer to nationality. Yet, the U.S.-bashing editors haven't alleged that this is undue weight due to U.K. jingoism and an anti-U.S. bias. A German editor proposed adding three columns with three additional ranking systems, all of which would place Germany first. Yet I don't think anyone alleged that it was a German nationalistic plot. Whether certain non-U.S. like it or not, there's a good faith reason for U.S. editors to advocate for total medals. AP (the major U.S. wire service which supplies medal tables for media outlets) has used total medals for decades and many U.S. media sources followed suit. Every Olympics without fail, my local newspaper went by total medals regardless of teh result. So many U.S. people think of ranking in those terms. And it's not so odd. This CTV article talks about the Canadian Olympic Committee's goals for total medals (http://www.ctvolympics.ca/news-centre/newsid=49352.html#no+first+place+finish+coc+admits). I don't think it's helpful for editors to allege nationalism regarding the U.S. but leave it out for other arguable cases. Just forgo attacking editor's motives as nationalistic and deal with the merits of the argument (unless an editor is explicitly nationalistic is his/her reasoning: "let's use this system because it benefits my nation"). --JamesAM (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The ranking is currently unclear, with the page saying that the traditional way of ranking (i.e. most gold medals first) is the primary listing, but the page shows the most total medals ranking as first in the default view of the list, at present. Also, more significantly, the host country shading has the US as the host country, which is obviously wrong and needs to be fixed. My recommendation, which I am not going to edit myself but rather want others in this discussion to see, is to abide by the traditional ranking (yes, I understand, nobody "wins") with the most gold medals first. It not only fits with other pages on the medal rankings of previous Winter Olympics, but it draws attention to the unprecedented number of golds that Canada has won, which affirms the point of the traditional ranking in the first place: just like in an individual competition, gold counts for more.Lrschum (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Math

Since when is a mathematical fact "personal commentary"? By that standard every single sentence would need a source--JimWae (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not original research, nor personal commentary. However what is remarkable about the top x teams winning the top y % of medals? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, the math is fact. Why focus on the percentage of medals won by the top ten? Why not the top 3 or top 5? A source is needed to explain how or why this information is relevant. The personal choice to focus on the top ten is where WP:OR comes into play. Wine Guy~Talk 02:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the medal table shown in the main Olympics 2010 article is arbitrarily reduced to the top ten. How is that justified then? --78.34.240.197 (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the people who made that decision. That is another, unrelated discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

True, maybe I should have worded it differently. The fact that the main Olympics article medal table is limited to the top ten means that it's plausible that people are making edits like the one discussed here. Don't know if it was the exact reason in this case, but it doesn't come as a surprise to me, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody else. --78.34.249.140 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Medals awarded in previous games

Stating the overall number of events to grant medals is no more POV than saying "Canada also broke the record for the most golds won at a single Winter Olympics, which was 13, set by the Soviet Union in 1976 and Norway in 2002. The United States placed first in total medals—its second time doing so in a Winter Games—and set a record for most medals won at a single Winter Olympics, with 37.". the reason is obvious. If you have more events in which to gain a medal, you have a higher likelihood of getting more medals than before. It actually adds balance to those earlier POV statements. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you added is bad grammar, and misplaced in this article. Why not list the number of events all the way back to 1924, per Olympic sports#Current winter program? More importantly, Madchester is correct. Unless you have a reliable source that states that is the reason why Canadians won 14 gold, your conclusion is original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Then fix the grammar, which I don't think is bad--it's a personal preference, and it can be moved, but shouldn't be removed. The CTV stated it was why the Canadians won more medals this time. Their statement was to the effect that Canada seems to pick up medals in the newly added sports. The conclusion is not original research if you look at the sports that Canada won Golds in. February 2010, and will include a new event for these Olympics, ski cross. Canada got gold in women's Ski Cross Freestyle skiing at the 2010 Winter Olympics. There were others. Allowing the unvetted statements to stand is POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And then there's the most recent comment: "This is not on any other medal page, so we should try to be consistent" Well, none of the content is on any other medals page. The record medals earned by a host nation isn't on any other page either, even when it happend. Please remove it too. You're being inconsistent. Seems that I'm well past WP:3RR so I'll leave it. This entire jingoistic nonsense is tripe. The main reason that every Olympics sees any nation surpass its previous medal counts is that there are more medals awarded. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct: "Allowing the unvetted statements to stand is POV." So where is the reference (from CTV) for your added statement? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. Since you're concerned, why not go over the hours of CTV coverage? I wasn't stating it as a source, but as a comment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I'm not going to do your work for you. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really asking you to do my work. You wanted the citation though so I'm not going to do your work for you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand; please read Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence one more time. If you want the (challenged) content added to the article, you must find the reliable source to reference it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand fully. I just don't care to find a source to please you. And besides, if I stated I had a broadcast source, how would you verify it? Did you happen to record that segment that I'm referencing? Do you have access to archives? that's what is so stupid about WP:V, particularly in this case. I can provide a source and you can't hope to claim it's not a valid source unless it's a blog or some other taboo source. besides, there's no citation tag for TV or live event broadcasts.

Now what you don't seem to understand is [i]f you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{citation needed}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. You have the option to leave it rather than deleting it. You decided instead to not request a source, but I won't complain about your behaviour because it's not that important. The only important thing is that the medal counts can keep going up and it's not a reasonable comparison: the Canadian 2010 Olympic Team appears to be better than any that went before it having won 24.1% of all available gold medals while they may or may not have achieved a higher percentage in prior games. Reminds me of the Dodge salesman to tried to tell me that the Grand Caravan had a higher percentage of transmission problems than the Caravan did because they sold more of them. He was trying to sway my POV so he could make a sale (or he failed math and didn't understand the concept). The achievement is a great one, but it's POV unless you indicate how they came to it and simply citing a source to back your fact is worse than a "damn lie", to paraphrase that famous saying. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of what I suspect will be a series of article questioning the "statistics". http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/03/02/f-own-the-podium-debate.html Don't worry, I'm not adding it as a source. You can keep the page without relevant facts, only things worse than damn lies.

If you're going to list the medal counts of previous games on this page, why not list them on all of the previous medal table pages? As is mentioned, the conclusion that Canada won the number of gold medals that it did simply due to the number of events violates WP:NOR without giving a source to state that information is true or relevant. If this information is to be placed in the article, find a reliable source that indicates the relation between number of events and medals earned, and cite it if the information is added to the page.Bcperson89 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't state that the fact there were more medal event that it is why they won more golds. The Russian Fedearation did more poorly across all medal events and that is one possible other reason, but it's important to note that there are more medal events than any previous Winter Olympic games. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is just a matter of finding a source stating why the number of events is important to mention. Also, the question arises as to how far back into the past do we go? Do we go back to Salt Lake City or Nagano? Why not Lillehammer? Or should we list the number of events for every Winter Olympics going all the way back to the 1924 Winter Olympics in Chamonix? And then, if the number of events for past Winter Olympics is listed on this page, should we go back to all the other Olympic medal table pages and start listing the number of events on each of those pages? Perhaps a better method would be to create a page of something like List of Winter Olympics by number of events or List of Summer Olympics by number of events, and place information there such as the country with the most golds and the total number of events. This would eliminate the question of how far back into the past we would need to list on this page, as all the event number information continually being placed on this page could be listed on a new one.Bcperson89 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The number of events at each Games is on each page. The second sentence in the lede says "86 events" and the total row in the table also shows 86 golds. Similar content exists on past medal table pages. And if you want a single summary of the size of each Olympic programme, see the tables on the Olympic sports page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that the number of events for this games was in the lede this page, and in the lede of all the medal pages. I was referring to the list that was previously on this page detailing the number of events in past games. It was on this page stating something along the lines of "It is important to note that there were 86 events in these games, whereas the 2006 games had XX events, the 2002 games had XX events, the 1998 games had XX events, the 1994 games had XX events...", without a reference indicating as to why that list information is important to be noted here.Bcperson89 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps if you read the discussion above, you might have a partial answer. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there a numerous articles stating Canada won most gold medals without taking notice of number of events seems POV by the writers of these articles. Having said that, I do believe there are more factors that can influence this, as number of participating nations: in 1976 only 37 nations partook while in 2010, 82 nations entered, which should make it harder to win gold. But I do agree the text, constantly stating: "broke the record" sounds very POV to me (the IOC doesn't even register medals counts, let alone records, as stated numerous times on this pag). Objectively, you cannot compare the different winter games, the fact that the media loves records, shouldn't mean Wikipedia automatically has to follow that subjective trend. Joost 99 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Reorder of Olympic Medal Table

I reordered the medal table for the sake of accuracy, for the sake of agreement. If we are going to provide a link under General in the references section to the official medal count, we had better order our medal table according to how the officials order it. It seems absurd to use their information and not follow their format. I have promptly redressed this concern and have made it impossible for further criticism. Please do not revert my edit and leave it as it is ad infinitum, as it cleared up any and every question a reader may have. Thanks for your help, The Reformed Editor (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

no, sorry, the IOC is the most authoritative source. ConfuciusInstitute (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, perhaps you just don't get it. I prefer to refer to a quote from a previous section here about the ranking. Wine Guy wrote:

The Official Vancouver 2010 website, the most reliable source possible, which is supposedly being used as a source here ranks by total medals. Who cares what the BBC does? Since when are they an official source for the Olympic games? Just because we have been doing something wrong for years is no reason to continue doing so.

I believe that that sums it up only too well. Please do not revert my subsequent edits.

You said that the "IOC is the most authoritative source". Ok? Someone said in the same thread: "the IOC unofficially endorse 'gold-first ranking'". Unofficially — that's not sufficient for me. Farewell, and please learn to edit more responsibly. The Reformed Editor (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I laughed at that, so thanks for that moment of joy. Why were there any questions a reader might have had with the old version and why are they cleared up now? Why did you link your use of "further criticism" to "Criticism of Wikipedia"? Why do you reorder a table "for the sake of agreement? Who did agree with whom? All in all it suggests supreme use of irony. But then, detecting irony is also supremely difficult on the net, so I might be wrong ...
Second, I suggest everyone takes a look at http://en.beijing2008.cn/# ("official website" etc ...) and see which type of order they use for their medal table: You guessed it, by gold medal. Also look at who leads the table and who would lead with the total medal count measure. My very personal, yet I believe very well founded view is that the "correct", "offical", "right" version of the table is always that one which looks better to the person publishing the table ... --Xeeron (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Except by VANOC for the Canadians. But as Madchester noted above, they started off with gold-first and mysteriously changed (to their detriment) after a few days. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Slow communication? Someone told the IP department to switch, when Canada failed to initially get gold medals, and the IP guys, lazy as they are, switched only later? I can see it happening, hehe. In any case, the lesson to take from that is that there is no one correct standard. Some use gold medals, other total medal, even others convert by 3:2:1 or 5:4:3. Always depending on what they want to convey. What is important though, is to stay consistent within the wiki. So we should simply use whatever ranking is used on the previous Olympic medal tables and standardize if needed. --Xeeron (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you fine gentlemen are going to complain profusely about what I wrote (hence "Why did you link your use of 'further criticism' to 'Criticism of Wikipedia'? Why do you reorder a table 'for the sake of agreement?"), I will as well, and I will do it quite caustically. I will address the problems in the quote I just reproduced. But first, I will attack your argument. So what if "http://en.beijing2008.cn/# ('official website' etc ...)" does it a certain way. Precedence must be judged and reviewed before replicating their technique. Yes, that was the Olympics, but it certainly was not a Winter Olympics. What previous Olympic sites do is not our problem. However, what the current Olympic site in question does is our problem. We follow the official example.
Now I attack the quote I spoke of earlier. I linked "further criticism" to Criticism of Wikipedia because that is exactly exactly to what I was referring. Do I need to lay it right out on the platter and feed it spoon for spoon into your open mouth? I "reorder[ed] a table for the sake of agreement" in order for it to agree with the official 2010 Winter Olympics site. Who can't see that? Of course you. . You obviously don't understand the meaning of "agreement". When agree is used, it doesn't always have to refer to a mutual understanding between two people. You are too juvenile to fathom that. The full definition of "agree" from Merriam-Webster is here. How does it "suggest[...] supreme use of irony"? Irony means (as from the reputable Merriam-Webster) "the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning". From your point of view, this is no irony. Oh! Forgive me. Maybe you were referring to the irony of your attempt to attack my argument but failing to do so because of your stark dearth of intelligence. In your first paragraph, you tried to quote me: "offical". If you are going to quote me, please do it correctly. I definitely did not spell that easily spelled correctly word incorrectly. I need to quote something (but I'll do it correctly):

Also look at who leads the table and who would lead with the total medal count measure. My very personal, yet I believe very well founded view is that the "correct", "offical", "right" version of the table is always that one which looks better to the person publishing the table.

That makes utterly no sense. The person publishing the table for the recent Olympic games (at The Official Count did not make the table "look[...] better" for themselves. The organization publishing the table is "The Vancouver Organizing Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games ". They're Canadian, yet the United States (grand as it is) appears at the top of the table instead of Canada, the host country that published the table in the first place. I wish that you will come to understand the art of argument, learn to analyze your evidence, and present it in such a manner that will not make a fool out of yourself. Consider this an essential lesson for life and business. Regards, The Reformed Editor (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I give that marvelous piece of talk page prose 9 out of 10 stars. I am waiting for more wisdom and wise words. Missed the last star from being too long, takes away from the fun having to read all that. --Xeeron (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your personal attacks, trolling, and harassment infuriate me greatly. I have promptly warned you for your unwelcome insults. Please desist, or you will be blocked accordingly. The Reformed Editor (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have come to realize something: who cares how the table is ranked? It's sortable anyway, so anyone who wants to know who lead in totals/golds can easily do so. It's all about editors from certain nations wanting to make their nation look superior. Frankly, I think we should just remove the damn ranking and default sort it alphabetically, then we won't have to go through this waste of time debate every two years. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

i think people would have still been able to come up with something (sort alphabets backwards or something). lol -- Ashish-g55 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)