Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

OlympicsWP logo.svg Welcome to the WikiProject Olympics talk page OlympicsWP logo.svg

Discussion Alerts Assessment Manual of Style Peer review
Here you can discuss with other users about general questions and issues involving the project. Here you can be updated on important changes in the workflow status of articles tagged by this project. Here you can check the project ratings statistics, learn how to assess articles, or request us an assessment. Here you can follow the project guidelines to help you create, expand, and format articles. Here you can ask the project membership to perform a review on any of its tagged articles.
Olympic Games
Pão de Açucar (Rio).jpg Rio
Winter 2014 Candidate City- PyeongChang Dragon Valley ski resort.jpg PyeongChang
476 days left
Shibuya Shinyuku-Tokio-Japon10.jpg Tokyo
1372 days left
1932 days left

To start a new discussion section, please click here


Currently Rugby at the Summer Olympics serves as a dab, while Rugby union at the Summer Olympics details efforts to include rugby at the Olympics and the prior version of rugby at the Olympics, while Rugby sevens at the Summer Olympics details the current version at the Olympics. Shouldn't the content about attempts to place the sport back into the Olympics be at Rugby at the Summer Olympics, since it covers 15s and 7s, and not just 15s? (in this case "rugby union" in Olympics-speak would just be 15s, similarly to how other sports' names have particular Olympics meanings) If such a refactor were done, then summaries of RU and R7 would also occur at the rugby article in place of the dab. -- (talk) 23:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

That would make sense, yes. That said, are we sure we want to seperate the two sports at all? I'd think "Rugby" would be the sport, and RU and R7 just be different events in the same sport, although held at different times. IOC's page refers to the sport as "Rugby": . Similarily, searching their database for former rugby union medalists, such as Leon Binoche, lists him with one medal in the sport "rugby". So I would suggest merging rugby union and rugby sevens into one sport. -- Lejman (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It's complicated. Sure, for the modern Olympics "rugby" = 7's. But it's a bit different if you view it from the rugby perspective, which starts with the fundamental split between the 13 and 15-man versions. To outsiders they might seem similar but they are regarded as separate sports (see eg the BBC Sport header). So following on from that, 7's is treated as a separate sport - and it probably has more in common with 13-man rugby league than 15-man rugby union. Now we don't have the opportunity to see how the IOC would treat 15-man and 7's in the same Games - would they get counted as variants of one sport or as two distinct "sports"? It's not just a question of doing the same thing with a different number of people, like rowing. One could argue it's a bit closer to the situation with trampoline and gymnastics, or BMX and cycling. But since it's a grey area, I think the distance in time should also count for something, and separate articles for union and 7's should be maintained. I've no great problem with expanding the current dab to provide more of an overview, but the status quo is fine by me.Le Deluge (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Listing final rankings where rankings exist[edit]

Generally ranking is the most central aspect of an athlete's or team's result. While knowing how far they jumped or how fast they ran (or swam) is interesting, it's how they rank relative to other athletes that determines medals. Given that, I think the athlete's ranking should be given when it can be given.

There are times when ranking is skipped in our tables. Notably in the qualification in Artistic Gymnastics (which doubles as final ranking for athletes that did not qualify further), but also in sports like Judo, where the competitor didn't finish in the top 8. In some events (like Tennis [1]), official final ranking isn't presented. Final rankings are given in many events we lack ranking for though, like Judo [2] (where everyone is ranked according to round eliminated), Handball [3] (every team ranked 1 through 12th) and Wrestling [4] (shared 3rd and 5th placements, worst athlete ranked 19th).

I propose we present the athlete's or team's final rankings in events where official rankings are given. The exception can accept is in sports like Swimming, where the ranking in the round the athlete was eliminated in always equals the athlete's final ranking. -- Lejman (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I still insist we should present the official final rankings for participants in judo [5] and taekwondo [6]. Also event qualification rankings in artistics gymnastics [7] (where all participants are officially ranked in every event except in - for whatever reason - the event vault). I'm however not arguing for results in tennis, nor table tennis (because I haven't seen any official ranking lists presented in those sports). -- Lejman (talk) 04:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Just a side note. All participants aren't ranked in the vault qualification, because two jumps are required to perform for the vault event, but only the first jump counts towards the all-around event. Many jump just once to get a score for the all-around. But I support listing all final rankings when a source is available. Hautala (talk) 06:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Why are classification points used as the scores in Wrestling sections on Country at the 2016 Summer Olympics pages like this? I had an argument about it with Raymarcbadz as I tried to enter the score in the Rio page 1 and he undid it... instead of 6–0 he wants it to be 3–0.

I read about it and what I understood was that Technical points are the score that decide the match result. Classification points are given by the referees after the match and their only purpose is to rank the wrestlers from seventh place down. In case of the medal matches class points are totally irrelevant. Technical points are awarded during the match for the actions wrestler perform. Places 1–6 are decided with technical points, so at least medal matches should use technical points score. --Klõps (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

From an outside perspective it seems kinda odd, as the points shown throughout the match is technical points, and that's used to determined the winner. It's also presented on the official match pages (like [8]). Contradictory, the class points are listed on the standings page ([9]). I feel I'm not deeply enough involved with the sport to have a strong preference for either choice. Is it merely a matter of "match points vs set points", or is there something more advanced about the class points? Does anyone know if you always can predict the class point result when you know the tech points (and how the match ended)? -- Lejman (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
It's much better if we can just display both of them on the scores simultaneously (both technical and classification)? Or propose a new table to generate results containing both scores for transparency and clarity to the wrestling rules. What do you guys think? I'm sticking to the original format that I used from London 2012? But because many of you place technical scores over classification, and you're getting confused when I replace them with classification points, I do not know what else should we need to improve. If you want to see what the NOC articles have been done at the previous Games pertaining to the scoring method in wrestling, take a look at this one. Raymarcbadz (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Klõps and Lejman, I think Mohsen1248 has indeed a full grasp on the advancements to the use of classification points, and he'll explain why these wrestling rules are entirely different from the other combat sports that involve scoring. Again, Sportsfan 1234 gave me the same problem about the scoring for Canada. BS. Raymarcbadz (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'm looking forward to his input, Raymarcbadz! I still find it confusing we show one score on the country page (class points) and the other score on the event page (tech points), without any explanation. Going for either is better than a mixed bag. (Edit: I still would like your input on the headline above this one!) -- Lejman (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I took some time and read the rules from United World Wrestling site – International Wrestling Rules

It makes it quite clear that class points are a tool to rank wrestlers in a tournament format from 7th place downward. page 15: The loser is eliminated and ranked according to the classification points marked, except wrestlers who lost against one of the finalists as they take part in the repechage for the 3rd or 5th places.

In a single match winner is decided by: 1) fall, 2)technical points, 3) highest value of awarded technical points, 4) least amount of cautions, 5) the last technical point awarded. Classification points are awarded regarding to the match result not the other way. So why this system to rank the dropped out wrestlers should be presented at all? And really why should country pages present results differently from event pages – that's what confused me in the first place.--Klõps (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I saw this discussion on my notification list, let me explain that only "technical points" matters. in past we had different system and classification points had much more importance, even though they changed the rules long time ago but FILA/UWW still uses them. until 2012 they had a system like Tennis, there are some ways to win a match in wrestling, but mostly matches finish by technical score, if you fall/pin someone the "technical score" doesn't matter, even if you are down by 9pts. (something like a knock-out) or if you win by 3-cautons disqualification. Mohsen1248 (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Quite dramatic rule changes then. So what do you think – does score 5–1F (F being winner by fall) say more about the match than class points 5–0VT (5–0 being the class points awarded for victory by fall by the rules and VT abbreviation of the same)?--Klõps (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
yes of course, but if you ask me, if a match finishes by fall, you better only mention "fall" , because the result doesn't really matter. if you want to mention the result something like Fall(5–1) is a better idea to me. Mohsen1248 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's much clearer.--Klõps (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
As a reader I found it surprising that a match I watched end 1-1 (last point being the decider) was being listed as "3-1". Reading through the discussion (including the overflow to a user talk page) my take is that the technical score should be given (noting falls by e.g. a superscript F as I've seen on some event pages) and then including the "PP", "PO", "VT" etc. legends, which (to people who understand the classification points system) would provide the classification point info as it seems there is a one-to-one correlation between e.g. "PP" and "3-1". Furthermore, the legends provide info on whether the game went to full time or terminated prematurely. (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
For now, we'll just place the classification scores on the NOC, unless you want to change them and remove the legend instantly. I have no time to put and correct so many errors, and answer too many questions and complaints from you pertaining to the issue, as I am currently working on the results for each NOC. Please bear my patience and inconvenience. Sorry! Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:52, August 2016 (UTC)
Sanity prevails in the end, thankfully!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Mohsen1248, you said that classification points were more important than the technical in the past. How come it became less important and the technical points took over? What were the other changes to the wrestling rules? From what I knew, only the Greco-Roman adjusted the gap on the technical superiority from 10 to 8. Sportsfan 1234, thankful for what? Raymarcbadz (talk) 04:16, August 2016 (UTC)
In past it was important to win the match by fall. now it doesn't matter how to win, they used to have a weird system of negative classification points, winning by fall had zero "bad points", winning by final score had 1 "bad point" and etc. any wrestler with 6 negative points was eliminated. I remember we had a wrestler who won 6 matches in a row and still got eliminated ! even back in 2000/2004 they had a round robin system, (they still use it for Youth Olympics) classification points was important for the group stage. for 2008 and 2012 they use a set-scoring system like Tennis. winner had to win two out of 3 periods, I think only rules back in 1996 was a bit similar to the new rules. almost a direct elimination format with repechage for everybody. Mohsen1248 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
This makes wrestling a good example why it is not a good principle to religiously stick to standards and manuals-of-style. If every tournament uses different rules, you should end up with different notation styles. Hautala (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Please use the original scores, don't use the irrelevant secondary rating system. The rules are different in this year. (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
The rating system is called classification scoring, be specific with the wrestling terms. I know the rules are different from the previous Games. How come the classification system becomes irrelevant and baseless? Kindly explain your case. If ever, suggest a table that display the results of wrestling with a combined technical and classification score. In the Rio 2016 website, the standings of each wrestling event show only the classification rating, and not the technical scores that the wrestlers had collected in every match. ! Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
At the Rio 2016 venue, the wrestlers, managers and spectators see the real score (12–10, for example) on the scoreboard, the official website use the real score on the top of match page (12–10). So these classification points do not mean anything, totally irrelevant secondary rating system (3–1), as it was said by editors on your talkpage. (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
In your case, do you want to change the format in wrestling by displaying technical scores for all NOCs, instead of the classification rating system that you find it not user and spectator friendly, irrelevant, and inappropriate. What's the difference from London 2012? How do we know if there's a tie between two wrestlers, a victory by fall, forfeit, or injury. How will you score them? Another suggestion is to develop an abbreviation template that will determine the rating of each wrestler in every match, similar to the athletics abbreviation template. Raymarcbadz (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems clear that the wrestling federation has changed which points matter compared to earlier games, and that now the technical points are the main points of interest. We should leave the classification points intact in our tables for earlier games, and use technical points this olympic game, as it's the main thing. So, we don't need to revert any of your work from previous olympics! :) That said, a template table for sports like wrestling, taekwondo and judo would be awesome. -- Lejman (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
In that case, you take the responsibility to change the scores into technical for all NOCs competing in wrestling, and add the legend that the IP user has posted in the Ukraine article. Btw, kindly replace the words "Technical superiority" in ST, to "Great superiority". Maybe you can contribute to the WP:OLYMOSNAT by adding format rules related to wrestling. Thanks! Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Some answers. if there's a tie between two wrestlers: simply W 8–8 PP. a victory by fall, forfeit, or injury. How will you score them? – simply W 8–8 VT (if by fall) or W 8–8 VB (if by injury/default/dsq, see updated key legend) (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
If there's a tie between two wrestlers, just add a plus sign for the winner in the PP or VT score. In case a wrestler is injured, just add an r sign on the score of the losing opponent. Raymarcbadz (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

1. Wrestling was about to be kicked out of the Olympics [10], but drastic rule changes saved the spot for it. So there is no need to change anything in the previous Olympics and which ever way the scores were marked 2012 does not matter in 2016.

2. Raymarcbadz, You ask how classification system is irrelevant. Irrelevance comes from context. So, in the context of the countries Olympic performance pages what matters is how a match between wrestler A and wrestler B concluded. Relevance of the classification points comes after the tournament to rank places downward from 7th. So pretty minor relevance in the context of the whole tournament. Class points are merely as points given in the ball games win 3p, tie 1p, loss 0p, but in wrestling loser may also be given 1 point.

3. Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) is outdated – the paragraph about wrestling has been unchanged from 2012 – before the rule changes.

4. In the Rio 2016 website, the standings of each wrestling event show only the classification rating – that's not true, the Rio page shows tech points, tech points were on scorebords besides the Wrestling mats etc.

Final Classification Report from rio (note the line between 5th and 7th. wrestlers under the line are ranked by class points)

As in this report classification points may be listed in the event pages in the Final standing list. Women's freestyle 58 kg#Final standing. Also in nations page at the end of the row there's columns Opposition Result & Rank maybe there can be a column class points?

5. How do we know if there's a tie between two wrestlers, a victory by fall, forfeit, or injury.

Athlete Event Qualification Round of 16 Quarterfinal Semifinal Repechage 1 Repechage 2 Final / BM CP Rank
Wrestler A −98 kg Wrestler B
W 7−3
Wrestler C
W 6+−6
Wrestler D
W Fall(5–1)
Wrestler E
L 5R–1
Did not advance 16 9

--Klõps (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics[edit]

Our page for the military patrol at the 1924 winter olympics points out that it was an official event at the time, and its medals were listed in IOC's database. Thus, despite various secondary sources treating the event as a demonstration sport, we've treated it as an early Biathlon event.

However, things appear to have changed. Searching IOC's database for medalists from the event, such as Denis Vaucher and Alfred Aufdenblatten shows the individuals, but they're listed as having no medals. More noticably, Switzerland's country page [11] lists their medal count from the game as being 1 gold and 1 bronze only, likewise indicating they've lost their gold medal in military patrol from the Chamonix games.

Based on these findings, I conclude that we should downgrade the military patrol event from the 1924 games to a demonstration event, and deduct the medals from the respective countries' medal counts. (I suppose the individuals' medals should also be noted as earned in a event later downgraded to demonstration event.) -- Lejman (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, their counts for Finland don't count the military patrol silver either, but it strangely counts a bronze from Paris 1924 that we lack, and a gold(!) from Albertville 1992 that most likely is the Speed skiing event that generally is viewed as a demonstration event. IOC's lack of consistency is frustrating. (I tried to check their counts for Sweden but failed to, as their strange use of Java only works for some countries for me.) -- Lejman (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
As I noted above it seems like the IOC no longer includes medals from discontinued sports (such as baseball and tug-of-war) in the medal counts on their NOC pages or in their database. This may lead to several issues regarding sourcing. (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll just leave it be... Silly IOC. -- Lejman (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Is there a reason why a different sidebar is being used at Triathlon at the 2016 Summer Olympics compared to Triathlon at the 2012 Summer Olympics and all other Rio 2016 sports? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor is now changing quite a few of the sidebar templates (rugby 7s for example). Is there any consensus on this? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
No, I do not think there was any consensus related to this point.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I do not agree with the change. However, there needs to be a discussion on this. I have reverted some of the changed made, and they should remain until a consensus on changing it arises. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Medal icons on team sport templates[edit]

There was a brief discussion down in WP:OLYMOSNAT eight years ago about including medal icons in the templates for the gold and bronze medal finals of team sports and no consensus seems to have been reached. I was hoping that discussion could be restarted and some actual guidelines hashed out to keep from having to fight the same war every two years. I posit that they add a nice visual emphasis on the medalists much like the medal icons do in the tables for other sports (and as far as I can tell don't violate any accessibility requirements) and are worth including. Torlek (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think they should be included. These are used in nation pages, where individual medalists are indicated with the medal icons. So for uniformity team sports should also include them. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Not included. They are match templates for match results and the parameter are "team", not final tournament position. In general articles should have more prose, and thus explaining it is a final (for example) and not just add these images. Qed237 (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I have invited WikiProject Football, WikiProject Basketball, WikiProject Handball and WikiProject Volleyball here as those sports are involved. Feel free to notify other sports as well if I missed something. Qed237 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean including them like this?: (Example removed, question answered)
Or do you actually want to modify the "football game" template to "automatically" medalize the teams? -- Lejman (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lejman: What we mean is if they should be shown (diff for support) or not shown (diff for oppose). Qed237 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Question:Can you further clarify - is this for display at pages such as Brazil at the 2016 Summer Olympics, or Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament? Or as it is a template does it display across both? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Currently in many of the sports (volleyball actually seems to be already in the format Lejman suggested below), such as football and basketball it's displayed through a template on both the individual country and the tournament pages. --SuperJew (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It looks better (on football projects) without the medals being included. Besides, it's usually already mentioned in the prose and the infobox. TheBigJagielka (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Good proposition to include the icons to show the match importance and to display the final results of this match inside of whole tournament. (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Simply not needed. It is a match template and nothing more. Medals can beseen on the article page... Kante4 (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not necessary in a footballbox, and the rankings table in the rankings section is enough to convey this. Also there are other sports which have competitions between two people/teams which don't have these medal icons on the final. (Archery, Badminton, Boxing, Fencing, Judo, Taekwondo, Tennis, Wrestling). Regardless of the decision it should be consistent across the Olympic sports. --SuperJew (talk) 12:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Just to clarify my stand from discussion above. These are matchtemplates and not for tournament result. There are separate ranking sections for this. Qed237 (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not needed in a match template. Visually, the layout looks messier with the little coloured circles than without, and the numbers distract from the match score. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Oppose, replace with table. I think it's the best way to show on the individual country pages when the country has scored a medal in a team event. The medals in other sports, like Judo, are easily shown in the athlete's row in a table, but medals in team sports are much less obvious. (For those who fail to medal we just write a line saying "Final placement: 11", which looks malplaced.) If we came up with a new way to clearly show the medals in team sports on country pages I could be okay with removing the medals in the match template. -- Lejman (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
You can see that they won a medal in the Medalists table (which is there for that sole reason). other teams don't have their final rank even given in this "best way to show". --SuperJew (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Some countries have their final ranking listed. It's awkward though, so there's room for a lot of improvement. The final rankings are absolutely central. My view is that they are more important than game result and opponents. We want the information to be as easily obtained by our viewers as possible. Medals in the games are at the moment the best way we swiftly and succintly show the result in the sport resulted in a medal. We could replace it with a table in the beginning or at the end though, listing the team and its score similar to our Judo tables for overview. If we did that I would be fine with removing the medal from the match template. Example for possible country page table: -- Lejman (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Not necessary. Is this discussion already closed? I think we already have a consensus. --Osplace 03:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)



Team Event Group Stage Quarterfinal Semifinal Final / BM
Rank Opposition
Sweden men's Men's tournament  Colombia
D 2–2
L 0–1
L 0–1
4 Did not advance 15
Sweden women's Women's tournament  South Africa
W 1–0
L 1–5
 China PR
D 0–0
3  United States
W 4–3P
1–1 a.e.t.
W 4–3P
0–0 a.e.t.
L 1–2
2nd, silver medalist(s)
I think this is a great suggestion Lejman. It solves the issue of having medals in the footballbox, shows the medal/rank on the overall country view and adds consistency across the sports. Thumbs up! --SuperJew (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I've added a section title and key guide. I've added the section before the men's and women's sections on Sweden's country page. If approved I'll help adding it to other countries too. -- Lejman (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Support These are the Olympics, so the medal templates should be included to indicate which countries won medals. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
What is special with the olympics? We dont have it for other major tournaments. It is a match template, not ranking. Qed237 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The Olympics is special in football because of the medals. It makes a big deal of them while other tournaments don't. But that is what the medalists table is for on individual country pages and the ranking table on the tournament page. --SuperJew (talk) 18:22, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I like the table idea!! Much better and would reduce the need for templates (which are time consuming to make). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
As an update, I've started installing the table mentioned above on country pages. I'm so far done with Handball, and am working on Water polo. -- Lejman (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit war brewing[edit]

Can we get edit protection for Template:Infobox Olympics Serbia maybe? Been going on for a while now. Jmj713 (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the same is going on with Template:Infobox Olympics Yugoslavia at the hands of Jmj713 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully just a bored SPA IP account who'll go away now the games are over. If it continues for another 24hrs, log it at WP:RFPP. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
He's still going. Done. Jmj713 (talk) 21:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

IOC medals template url broken[edit]

{{IOC medals}} url is broken. has changed their search page. --Bamyers99 (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Olympic Nomenclature (Tennis)[edit]

Following a brief discussion (here), there is a need for a consensus on naming conventions at the Olympics. The issue arose in relation to the tennis articles at this year's Olympics and how their titles should be formatted.
The original following conflicts arose:

The issue is in relation to whether both words after the hyphen should be capitalized, whether just the first should be, or whether neither should be. From an internal Wikipedia point of view, the majority of tennis articles outside of the Olympics follow the first option, with both words capitalized, for example

Looking outside of Wikipedia, the official websites of all four Grand Slam tournaments often follow the 'double capitalization rule':

But they are also inconsistent in whether both terms are a true proper name, as with "men's doubles crown" and "mixed doubles crown." Plus these sites often use upper case on every letter or every word. ESPN uses both lower case [ right here but every letter capitalized here.

The Official ITF Olympic Tennis website even capitalizes both words as does the 2016 Olympic website. However the NBC Olympic site treats neither as a proper noun, using lower case on both Somebody made the point that since they are just nouns and not proper nouns, that the second word after the hyphen should not be capitalized. However, after a bit of my own research I found this:

Here are directions for implementing APA’s title case:

Capitalize the first word of the title/heading and of any subtitle/subheading; Capitalize all “major” words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, and pronouns) in the title/heading, including the second part of hyphenated major words (e.g., Self-Report not Self-report); and Capitalize all words of four letters or more. [1]


So by this logic the title should read: Tennis at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's Singles.

Whatever decision is come to, some consistency needs to be introduced across all Olympic tennis articles, dating back to 1896. Even though the same issue is prevalent across other Olympic events, if it can be sorted for the tennis articles, it would be a start.

For discussion, when it's in a title but not at the start of a sentence, is it better to use the term "Mixed Doubles", "Mixed doubles" or "mixed doubles"?
F1lover22 talk 09:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment - I would say that as far as sourcing goes, I see "Mixed Doubles" more often... at least in tennis terms. Next I see "mixed doubles", and then "Mixed doubles." Google ngram appears to show in books what I see on websites. Of course that doesn't mean we have to go exactly by sources. Often "Mixed Doubles" appears on sports sites in sentences or titles where every word is capitalized for emphasis, and I've also seen quite a few MIXED DOUBLES... so those examples could skew things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


More input would be appreciated at Template talk:Country IOC alias GBR. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:22, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Country IOC alias GBR[edit]

Note. A potentially breaking change was proposed for Template:Country IOC alias GBR, and went live not too long ago. This change affects about 7000 pages. For example:

Should the change be reverted? Please comment at the template talk, thanks — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

List of athletes who competed in both the Summer and Winter Olympic games[edit]

The last couple of weeks I have expanted this article. I will just like to discuss about the criteria. The following three option are possible at my point of view:

1 Change the name of the article to List of athletes who competed in both the Summer and Winter Olympic sports. Delete all the athletes taht competed in Figure Skates/Ice Hockey at the 1920 Summer Olympics & 1924 Winter Olympics
2 Remove Nikolai Panin (competed in 1908 with Figure Skating & 1912 Shooting) because he did not compete at the Winter Olympics
3 Delete no one of the list en keep the name the same. Micnl (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
What about listing figure skating athletes only in a separate table? --Tone 14:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd think about it from the user's point of view - they will be coming to that article expecting the modern paradigm of sports being in one or other of the Games but not both. The interesting thing is people who competed in winter and summer sports, but the question will tend to be framed as competing in winter and summer Games. So I'd tend to keep the title the same, if we were to change it I'd tweak your name to either List of athletes who competed in summer and winter Olympic sports or List of Olympians in summer and winter sports. So people like Panin are definitely interesting enough to keep in the article, I'm 60:40 on whether he stays in the main list or as a footnote. I think all those ice hockey players/figure skaters should probably be a footnote or second table, except for the likes of Léonhard Quaglia who were genuine double-sporters. The ice hockey/figure skating thing is mildly interesting in a pub quiz kind of way, but as athletes they're not as interesting as the genuine winter/summer people. Le Deluge (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
As for the move, I support moving it to sports, but I don't have a strong preference on that. As for the other changes you recommend going with it, I strongly prefer those, so include Nikolai Panin, and reduce all the "Summer games but only in a Winter sports" athletes to a footnote, including Leonhard Quaglia (as both his sports were winter related). -- Lejman (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the title move. I think we keep it as Games because that's how the Olympics is orgnaised, and I think that the article is of interest because it's much more rare for people to compete at both Games than it is for people to compete in different sports. That a group of athletes did it in 1920/`924 is of interest now because it has become a rarity. Note we don't have a List of athletes who have competed in multiple Olympic disciplines because it's comparatively common, and I don't see a particular reason to pick out winter v summer sports in comparison to say, cycling v aquatics or racket sports v equestrian or some such. However, I agree that we should separate out the athletes who competed in the Figure Skating/Ice Hockey at the 1920 Summer and 1924 Winter Games into a separate list, underneath the main one. I'd keep Léonhard Quaglia in that list as he only competed in winter sports, but have Philippe Van Volckxsom in the main one as he also competed in rowing. Finally, yes, I'd remove Nikolai Panin from the list but might consider adding a sentence about him in the prose in the introduction. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I would agree to put the 1920/1924 Ice skating/Figure Skating on a sepparate list. I know that the lis is incomplete, but I know that the Belgium and Dutch are competed. If you know athletes please add them to te list. --Micnl (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


I see one user is adding XXX in women's sport' categories in all Olympic events, something like this and this, I was wondering is this really necessary to have that in every single event of the Games ? to me it looks silly. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree it is silly. That category should be left to the main article pages and not the individual event pages (except in team sports, where the category should go on in the event page). @Tim!:

2028 Summer Olympics page move[edit]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

RM notification 21 October 2016[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Megan Marcks#Requested move 3 September 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 01:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Flags in footer navigation templates[edit]

User:CaptainCanada has been adding national flags to the Olympic champion footer navigation templates. See for example here versus here. Traditionally we have not used flags in Olympic champion footer templates. It doesn't appear to be in use across any other sports events either. What are people's thoughts on this change? CaptanCanada has also introduced new links to both the games event article (e.g. Cross-country skiing at the 2002 Winter Olympics) and the specific yearly NOC articles (e.g. Norway at the 2002 Winter Olympics). SFB 21:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I support these templates without flags. These edits should be reverted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I started doing this because I noticed that the templates for the gymnastics events (and, as I later saw, some of the Winter Olympics templates, albeit in a slightly different form) were already set up that way, and I thought it was a much cleaner and more informative organizational pattern (particularly in that it links to the individual country, and in a number of instances I included links to the specific event that weren't already there).CaptainCanada (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the standard practice is to place links only to the stated topic of the navigation template. Hence, you would have Template:Footer Olympic Champions 100 m Men to link between the champions and Template:Olympics100metres to link between the event articles. I see that quite a lot of Olympic event-level navigation templates are missing, however. For example there is no template to navigate through the other Super Heavyweight articles at Boxing at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's super heavyweight, nor a category structure for then either, i.e. there is no boxing equivalent for what we've got at Category:Athletics events at the Olympics. I think there is plenty of work to do to better connect these topics. SFB 01:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon[edit]

Hi. Members here may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most geography, wildlife and women articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African Olympians, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Field hockey at the 2016 Summer Olympics (squads)[edit]

I've noticed that the page containing the squads of the nations becomes inconsistent. The men's squads share the same format, while the women didn't. I already put a wise, humble explanation to the templates, and then somebody just simply reverted my edits with so much disrespect, negative feedbacks, and unintelligent, irrational remarks (you know who controls it), when I returned them to original format because they're too inconsistent and become substandard. Only Argentina, Spain, and New Zealand already have the tables set up in their own respective templates, while the rest of the nations left incomplete and inconsistent. If you want to expand the contents for the rest, please do so as soon as possible. Thank you for your cooperation.

For further understanding, see the comparison. Spain and Japan, and take a look back at the women's team squads.

Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

List of 2016 Summer Olympics medal winners[edit]

I wonder if a list like List of 2016 Summer Olympics medal winners would be pretty easy to promote to Featured list status. Seems the information is easily verifiable, so an expanded lead and some images might mean FL criteria are easily met? Just sharing a link to a seemingly complete list if any project members need to FL project to consider... Happy editing! ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)