Jump to content

Talk:Equestrian events at the Summer Olympics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nations chart

[edit]

The nations chart on this page appears not to be complete. It also needs some explanatory text as it is not clear was the numbers represent.

Medal table

[edit]

The RankedMedalTable with the 'class=wikitable sortable' parameter should not have rowspan, becouse it will screw up the table when one tries to sort it.

One solution could be the repeatition of ranks for ties:

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1  Germany (GER) 21 10 11 42
2  Sweden (SWE) 17 10 14 41
3  France (FRA) 12 12 10 34
4  United States (USA) 11 20 18 49
5  West Germany (FRG) 11 5 9 25
6  Netherlands (NED) 10 10 2 22
7  Italy (ITA) 7 9 7 23
8  Great Britain (GBR) 6 9 12 27
9  Soviet Union (URS) 6 5 4 15
10  Australia (AUS) 6 3 2 11
11  United Team of Germany (EUA) 5 5 4 14
12  Switzerland (SUI) 4 10 7 21
13  Belgium (BEL) 4 2 6 12
14  New Zealand (NZL) 3 2 4 9
15  Canada (CAN) 2 2 2 6
16  Mexico (MEX) 2 1 4 7
17  Poland (POL) 1 3 2 6
18  Spain (ESP) 1 2 1 4
19  Austria (AUT) 1 1 1 3
20  Brazil (BRA) 1 0 2 3
21  Czechoslovakia (TCH) 1 0 0 1
21  Japan (JPN) 1 0 0 1
23  Denmark (DEN) 0 4 2 6
24  Chile (CHI) 0 2 0 2
25  Norway (NOR) 0 1 1 2
25  Romania (ROU) 0 1 1 2
27  Argentina (ARG) 0 1 0 1
27  Bulgaria (BUL) 0 1 0 1
29  Portugal (POR) 0 0 3 3
30  Hungary (HUN) 0 0 1 1
30  Saudi Arabia (KSA) 0 0 1 1
Total 133 131 131 395


The other solution could be the use of 'class=wikitable':

Rank Nation Gold Silver Bronze Total
1  Germany (GER) 21 10 11 42
2  Sweden (SWE) 17 10 14 41
3  France (FRA) 12 12 10 34
4  United States (USA) 11 20 18 49
5  West Germany (FRG) 11 5 9 25
6  Netherlands (NED) 10 10 2 22
7  Italy (ITA) 7 9 7 23
8  Great Britain (GBR) 6 9 12 27
9  Soviet Union (URS) 6 5 4 15
10  Australia (AUS) 6 3 2 11
11  United Team of Germany (EUA) 5 5 4 14
12  Switzerland (SUI) 4 10 7 21
13  Belgium (BEL) 4 2 6 12
14  New Zealand (NZL) 3 2 4 9
15  Canada (CAN) 2 2 2 6
16  Mexico (MEX) 2 1 4 7
17  Poland (POL) 1 3 2 6
18  Spain (ESP) 1 2 1 4
19  Austria (AUT) 1 1 1 3
20  Brazil (BRA) 1 0 2 3
21  Czechoslovakia (TCH) 1 0 0 1
 Japan (JPN) 1 0 0 1
23  Denmark (DEN) 0 4 2 6
24  Chile (CHI) 0 2 0 2
25  Norway (NOR) 0 1 1 2
 Romania (ROU) 0 1 1 2
27  Argentina (ARG) 0 1 0 1
 Bulgaria (BUL) 0 1 0 1
29  Portugal (POR) 0 0 3 3
30  Hungary (HUN) 0 0 1 1
 Saudi Arabia (KSA) 0 0 1 1
Total 133 131 131 395

HorsemansWiki (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1900 Grand Prix Jumping

[edit]

The Grand Prix Jumping part of the Equestrian at the Summer Olympics#1900 Paris Games seems
to contradict to the content of Equestrian at the 1900 Summer Olympics - Jumping, which states that
45 competitors entered, though only 37 competed, and the result was:

  • 1 Aimé Haageman (BEL) Benton II 2:16.0
  • 2 Georges van der Poële (BEL) Winsor Squire 2:17.6
  • 3 Louis de Champsavin (FRA) Terpsichore 2:26.0

This seems to be in line with the information of the following sources:

--HorsemansWiki (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the events in 1900 were a little different than the events in 1912. (like high jumping, which was later taken out) Even the show jumping seems to have been re-hashed with some sort of different format. Unfortunately, other than that, I don't have the time to research the issue, but the FEI web site is the best source you probably have of the ones you list. The IOC may have further info. I'm not a main editor on this article, so maybe some of the other folks who edit can weigh in. Montanabw(talk) 23:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no idea where the "Grand Prix Jumping" section of this article came from. The Equestrian at the 1900 Summer Olympics - Jumping is in accord with all of the sources of which I'm aware. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Than probably it would be a good idea to rewrite the "Grand Prix Jumping" section accordingly, to resolve the contradiction. At least this is what I did in the Hungarian version of this page... --HorsemansWiki (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it here too, but the bronze for High Jump competition is also seems to be wrong [1].
--HorsemansWiki (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1956 Equestrian

[edit]

The 1956 events were not just held in Stockholm, but were held several months prior to the actual Olympic Games and they even featured a completely different medal design. Is this worth noting in the article, or should this just be mentioned in the 1956 equestrian event article? Joey80 (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Equestrian" what?

[edit]

Equestrian being an adjective, one wonders what intended noun has been intended. The tortured phrase displayed on Wikipedia's Main Page ...United States' last military delegation to equestrian at the Summer Olympics... (a verb?) should have alerted editors that the title of this article needs work.--Wetman (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the form used at the Olympics. Go bother someone else. Montanabw(talk) 23:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of medal table

[edit]

I'm struggling to understand what is and is not included in the medal table.

If one considers the three Olympic Equestrian Disciplines (Eventing, Showjumping and Dressage) since 1912 there can be a maximum of 132 medals of each colour (1 per team and 1 individual over 3 disciplines over 22 games). In fact there were no team showjumping medals awarded in 1932 (so minus 1 of each), there was no bronze medal awarded in team eventing in 1932 either (minus 1 bronze) and there was no team dressage competition held in 1912, 1920, 1924 or 1960 (minus 4 of each).

This suggests that the columns in the medal table should add up to a maximum of Gold - 127, Silver - 127, Bronze - 126

I don't think the medals for Polo, Vaulting and Prizejumping should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.201.212 (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is longstanding consensus here that if an event (such as Polo or long jumping) was once in the Olympics and medals awarded, then it needs to be included here so the history is complete. Montanabw(talk) 03:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely accurate, actually, as we don't count things like Equestrian at the 1900 Summer Olympics – Mail coach, for instance. We generally include the events that the IOC has in its medallist database. The vaulting and jumping events are in there, which is why we include them. The polo results should probably be removed from this page, as polo is a separate sport (with a separate page). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 03:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if polo was once recognized, it DOES involve horses. I suppose that begs the question of where we put things like Modern pentathlon, which also involves horses, then, but let's keep chatting. Montanabw(talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Polo was considered a separate sport, and has its own pages (Polo at the Summer Olympics). High jumping, long jumping and vaulting were official Olympic sports and were considered part of the "equestrian" section, which now is made up of three-day eventing, dressage and showjumping. Mail coach and mixed hacks and hunters were unofficial exhibition classes, not official Olympic competitions. See List of Olympic medalists in equestrian for a more detailed, better sourced listing of medalists. Dana boomer (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that skijoring was also an exhibition sport. Has reining advanced to exhibition status yet? And, at any rate, do we want to note any of this in the article? Montanabw(talk) 22:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be noted someplace. Was the skijoring using dogs, horses or vehicles? Don't know if reining has advanced to exhibition status... Dana boomer (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Horses, of course! (See the article) :-D Montanabw(talk) 01:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Values of each discipline in three day

[edit]

What are the current values the FEI is using for three day ie in the past I believe it was 1 dressage 12 cross country 3 show jumping ? From Stuart Black USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.42.216.51 (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Equestrian Olympics as GLBT haven?

[edit]

It appears that 25% or 27% of the openly GLBT competitors at the 2016 Summer Olympics are in the Equestrian field. Interesting. I'm not sure it is relevant to this article. But it is a huge percentage in one very small sport. What do others think? T-bonham (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. You didn't watch Men's synchronized diving, apparently. As for the rest, do you have a citation for that? Montanabw(talk) 07:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, wasn't there one year when every man on the US dressage team was gay? I also remember reading an article online, where the (straight male) writer said that was great for the LGBT community, but had a very valid point that it was discouraging straight teenagers, particularly straight boys, from getting into the sport because others might see them as gay. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not certain, but pretty much an article of faith, I think! LOL! Well, for the straight boys, there's always rodeo! And horse racing for the short ones! In the Arabian show world, the saddle seat crowd also is probably quite LGBT-friendly too. Montanabw(talk) 05:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Utter unimportant trivia. Not near significant enough for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Procedural close It would indeed be best to have this discussion at one place and not have to repeat the exercise for the dozens of similar articles (and categories). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Equestrian at the Summer Olympics → Equestrianism at the Summer Olympic Games – This was moved, correctly as far as I can see, to Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics and then moved back. Our article title policy is clear that an article title is under normal circumstances always a noun.[1] 'Equestrian' can be a noun, but makes no sense as one in this context; here it is an adjective. I propose a change in the title from 'Summer Olympics' to 'Summer Olympic Games' because that is the title of our article, but no objection to Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics if that is preferred. If the page is moved, all dependent pages such as Equestrian at the 2004 Summer Olympics should be moved to match. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ For reference, the full text of that section is "Use nouns: Nouns and noun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works: A rolling stone gathers no moss, or "Try to Remember". Adjective and verb forms (e.g. elegant, integrate) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance, Integration), although sometimes they are disambiguation pages, like Organic and Talk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is the gerund (-ing form), as in Swimming."
  • Also, at WT:SPORTS, "Equestrian events at..." and "Equestrian sports at..." have been suggested as alternatives. I have notified that WikiProject. And it isn't an uncontroversial move, not least because the title isn't agreed upon, so it's perfectly fine to be reverted and then a RM started. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § RfC: "Equestrian" article titles and categories: bulk move request

Requested move 30 December 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 16:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– In ordinary English usage, equestrian is either an adjective or, when used as a noun, means a rider and not events, sports, or equestrianism. See Cambridge, OED, Collins, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.com. Some editors may be accustomed to equestrian as a noun other than 'person who rides horses'; others find equestrian in the current titles ungrammatical. But in either case, "equestrian events" is universally natural and common to English speakers of all backgrounds. (Previously discussed in a 2022 RfC, with no formal closure: "equestrian events" acceptable to the largest number of editors; consensus against "equestrianism"; "equestrian sports" also possible.) Adumbrativus (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Schierbecker (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As User Kingsif stated in the previous RM discussion, the proposal treats this as though we (Wikipedia editors) get to "decide the name of the sport as we use it. But we do not. We have a standard format and put the name of the sport, as decided by the appropriate sporting authorities, in that format. The Olympics just call it "Equestrian" ([2], [3]). Just because the proper noun isn't also a common noun in this case, doesn't matter in the slightest." Same view. Jeff in CA (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per what I said last time, quoted above by Jeff. Kingsif (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per Kingsif and WP:COMMONAME. The most succinct name should prevail. Svartner (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:OFFICIAL, what the Olympic bodies call it is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is WP:COMMONNAME, and that's very clearly not the current titles, which are very poor English. Personally, I'd go with "Equestrianism", which is the normal name for these events and is more concise, but if "equestrian events" is preferred then I'll happily go with that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't lie: OFFICIAL says that official names should always be considered, and only where there is a definite COMMONNAME that is different to the official name should this common name be the first choice.
    Speaking of, can you provide sources that actually show there is a common name for the events that isn't "Equestrian"? You'd have to do that if you want to assert that the common name is very clearly not the current titles. And, again, the titles aren't poor English insomuch as "Equestrian" is being considered a proper noun (as the official name), even if it sounds strange. That's another reason to point out that it is the official name - it makes the grammar concern utterly moot.
    In a related way, another objection to the change, which is perhaps not highlighted enough in my !vote, is that We have a standard format. Are we going to change all articles to "Swimming events at the XXXX Summer Olympics" and similar or are we going to make Equestrian stand out in a different way by not? It would be a lot of unnecessary page moves that just create a different title issue. Kingsif (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't lie. I very much suggest you don't make a habit of language like this or you will rapidly end up being blocked. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant support if this is really the best we can do – anything to get rid of the current name which just makes us look illiterate. No, Kingsif, no need to move the swimming article because is not at Swimmer at the Summer Olympics, which would be analogous to where this one is (and equally ungrammatical). A shorter and less pompous title would be better – Equestrianism at the ..., Equestrian sports at the ..., Horse sports at the ... would all be preferable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justlettersandnumbers (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the requirememt for article titles to make coherent sense in English. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: This is leaning move, but clarification is needed on the preferred target. "Equestrianism at the Summer Olympics" or the original suggestion "Equestrian events .."? Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Equestrian_events_at_the_Summer_Olympics&oldid=1213869416"