Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21

Politics section at China at the 2020 Summer Olympics

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics#Politics Hi. Just wanna ask if the community has any consensus on if such section belongs to Nations at Olympics page. My opinion is that the Nations Summary page mainly focus on the delegation itself. Politics section seems off topic. Also I would like to quote part from the Team Summary issue at USA page above, "None of the other articles have it so it needs to be discussed if ever brought back." Thank you. --阿pp (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC) On 6 Aug the situation got worse. User:Horse Eye's Back added more out-of-portion negative information to the section and removed a neutral politics statement (political leaders sent congratulation to the team). I no long assume him with good faith and I encourage more editor from this WikiProject take part in this discussion. --阿pp (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi @阿pp, I second this and have already found a Wikipedia Page where this section on politics can be moved to. This is the controversies Page for the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympics. If there are no disagreements, I propose we proceed to shift the content of the politics section to this page and delete it from the China's Nation Summary for the Olympics Atom105 (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Support per aboveYeungkahchun (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Given the feature coverage in WP:RS I’m not really seeing the "out-of-portion” or “negative” here. Why exactly have you stopped assuming good faith? Also just to be clear I didn’t mean to remove the piece you added from the government site, I’m not sure how that happened, sorry. I’m also curious as to why you took this here instead of trying to resolve it on the talk page, why blank the section and escalate? In theory you should open a talk page discussion before doing either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The first news of information you added is "Chinese diplomats complain to NBC on coverage of Chinese Taipei/Taiwan", it's related to China, USA, and Taiwan, if you think non-delegation information should be on the nation's page as long as they are related to the nation, why only add the news on the China page? Another one: "A win by Taiwan over China in badminton increased tensions between the two countries". Again, why only add it on China page? "[T]he Embassy of China, London criticized the BBC’s coverage", how about Team GB page? --阿pp (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
We can definitely make sections on those pages if the coverage supports it, the coverage we have focuses on China because its Chinese diplomats taking action. I would note that our coverage comes from a broad range of reliable sources, it is certainly due coverage. Note that I did add it to China–United Kingdom relations[1]. Anytime a superpower talks about grave concerns thats a big deal, especially as its language almost never associated with sports. Also note that the BBC and NBC are corporations not governments, the Chinese state was not criticizing those countries directly so it isn’t really the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
You see, it is the Chinese diplomats who are taking actions, not China at the 2020 Summer Olympics (THE DELEGATION). Chinese diplomats are taking actions all year around, but they do not somehow suddenly becomes part of the delegation during the Games. The page is not Chinese Government at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Of course those information could be on the China–UK relations page. That is not what I am against. I agree that those news are due coverage, but they do not belong to the page. Also you can see from this very talk page, consistency issue is very important on WikiProject Olympics. We have discussions on whether to add certain kinds of information on all Nations at Olympics page, or remove from all of them. (I am not saying there is some kind of policy or consensus already there, but this is in fact the practice here.) --阿pp (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
You think that government-related information (diplomats) should be on the page, meanwhile you removed a news statement from the Chinese government. I still don't assume you with good faith. --阿pp (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, China at the 2020 Summer Olympics... Not "Chinese athletes at the 2020 Summer Olympics.” It wasn’t a news statement, it was a press release from Sun Chunlan’s office and I already said that was a mistake. Perhaps you have such a strong feeling about what the page should be about because you’ve made 625 edits to it (49.7% of all edits)? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes I contributed a lot on this page. What's wrong with that? That's pretty normal during the Olympics actually. I am against you not only because you are the only one proposing this idea to add the politics section, but also because you used a totally legal but actually unfair method to your advantage --- you asked for a semi-protection on the page and thus prevented at least two other users against your idea from editing the page, one of them is User:Atom105. I don't think you are a good faith editor, I think you are a troll. --阿pp (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, There is NOTHING wrong with User:阿pp making 625 edits(49.7% of all edits) on China's page. If you checked his Talk Page, 阿pp is from China and he is merely updating the scores for all the events that his countrymen is taking part in. As the events take place over time, the edit will increase after the addition of scores for each event. There is nothing wrong with this. Why are senior wikipedians here(User Zoglophie is also accusing me of massive edits) questioning us when we are making LEGIT edits and updating the Olympic 2020 records!?. You can double check our contributions. We are not vandals. We are doing out part to update the massive amount of results. I have barely started to do citations. There is so much work to do and we are being targeted here for doing many edits??
Secondly, I supported the removal of the politics section of the china page as Sports is Neutral. As 阿pp have said, those comments are not made by the chinese olympics delegation. I have also checked other countries page and there are no such section either. I did find many controversies(with regards to Tokyo 2020 Olympics) in the Page which I linked previously which I believed(and still do) that it's a better section to report the news that is mentioned for the politics part, hence my recommendation.(Disclaimer: I am also not from China. I am from a neutral 3rd country here so please don't think I am supporting 阿pp cuz we are from the same country)
Thirdly, yes the semi-protection did prevented me from updating scores and citation for China's page. but I gotten auto-confirmed rights yesterday to edit semi-protected articles so this is no longer an issue. But this was annoying though previously cuz i update olympic data according to the participants in the event so i go through all countries to update their pages from Rank 1 to the last ranked player. Luckily 阿pp is actively updating china's page or else I have to note down and round about back to re-updated the scores for china again after a few days.
Just FYI edits need to be sourced when they are made, reviewing both of your edit histories it seems that you both regularly make changes and additions without citing a source. Thats generally discouraged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, i am aware of wikipedia's citation requirement when inputting data. It is not forgotten but the quantity of data being added is staggering. Additionally, if you have checked most NOC olympics pages, nobody is inputting their scores with citation at the moment. However, I have and AM inputting the citations after the finals of a particular event is completed as best as I can.

I have also looked at your Edit Contributions. Instead of criticizing us here, perhaps you can help us to add the citations and update the olympic results too? Many events have ended and their official results can be cited and also needs to be archived. The inputted data also needs to be double-checked against the official results for consistency. There is so many things to do and yet you have not edited a single Tokyo Olympics 2020 article(besides this china page politics issue) but you are commenting here on the rest of our efforts for the olympics. Atom105 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
If you’re aware of our citation requirements and purposefully ignoring them in BLP contexts then you’re being actively disruptive, theres no excuse for that. Wikipedia is not a race, it is not news, and there is no deadline, slow down and do the bare minimum that is required of you per policy and guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
As per HaeB's advice. I an stopping any further discussions on this part Atom105 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I would like to encourage participants of this discussion to base their arguments on Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than on personal opinions and attacks on other editors.
Specifically, 阿pp's ask to declare political aspects "off topic" instead of having the article reflect all significant views that have been published by reliable sources on the topic is in clear contradiction to WP:NPOV, and their blanket deletion here of all such RS coverage has resulted in that article violating NPOV. Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi HaeB, can i have some clarification then with regards to updating wikipedia articles for the olympics. Is is NOT ALLOWED for us to update the scores/data first and then thereafter add in the Citations at a later date? I ask this because this is being done by many wikipedians(besides me) on each countries's NOC olympic page. Is everyone of us doing it wrong? or am I being singled out because i was the one who brought this up here? Atom105 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Atom105, in case it's helpful, I agree with the two experienced editors who answered your question about the same issue over at the Teahouse by confirming that what Horse Eye's Back said is correct and advising that "You are being asked to do things correctly, and instead of being very tired of it, you should be grateful for the advice". Regard, HaeB (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @HaeB:@Horse Eye's Back:I have just read and understood the viewpoint of all of you experienced editors(including the Teahouse editors). But I wish to do an addendum here that I am not lying when I say everyone is doing it. Please check the contributions pages for Japan, United States and Russia(ROC) as examples(FYI, The other countries pages are also the same). As a new wikipedian, my first exemplar will be to follow what other wikipedians here are doing. I have no idea that what they are doing(i.e. updating articles without citation) is incorrect. While I understand it now, I wish to add that I did all these with the best of intentions and no malice was intended nor did I intended to lie. Atom105 (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Atom105: Of course, no ill intent was assumed (see also WP:AGF). It's OK to start editing without studying all the rules and policies first ("Be bold!") and many editors look at existing content for guidance, but that has its limits as Wikipedia is always a work in progress and at any point in time there will be a lot of articles with do not yet conform to policy in some aspects or have other serious problems (WP:OTHER talks about such issues). Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Pay attention to the article name China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Are those Chinese diplomats complaining NBC or BBC at the Games? They are complaining about TV coverage. Are this page China at the 2020 Summer Olympics and other Nations page related to TV coverage at all? I assume most, if not all, WikiProject Olympics editors would agree that in this title China at the 2020 Summer Olympics, China clearly refers to the Chinese Olympic Delegation, the Athletes and the Chinese Olympic Committee, not the Chinese government, hence news related to Chinese diplomats belong to somewhere else. So prove me wrong.
@HaeB:, I see you are referring to this edit, I would like to refer to a earlier "blanket deletion" if I may quote you. The only one news item related to the Chinese delegation was deliberately removed, leaving only negative news towards the Chinese government. Is this what you called NPOV? Seriously? You think that editor has good faith?
Also, on the Manual of Style, it states that those "Nations at Games" pages are "articles describing the results obtained by the competitors of a specific National Olympic Committee (henceforth referred simply as "nation") at an edition of the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games. " Is that still not clear enough? --阿pp (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It wasn’t deliberately removed, I’ve told you multiple times that it was an accident. You need to review WP:AGF. Also again it was a press release not a news piece. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
That was super weird. I added in a full proper reply and clicked publish yet somehow most of my message didn't get shown. So now have to rewrite what I tried to add in the first time. And copy my text before clicking publish.

My take was basically that there shouldn't be doubles standards here. Chinese diplomats also mentioned Simone Biles and what great sportsmanship she did. And also mocked on how American media uses a self serving weird medal table. Can we add that in or just narrowly focus only on the hostile diplomatic responses only? If so, the section can be endless and overwhelm the article with match outcomes and people outside the Olympic delegation. You cannot add every single topic just because it's related.

Otherwise why not add in a Politics section for all other countries too? Why not add in a politics section to America and talk about what their politicians said about Simone Biles? It's also very significant and relevant. But we don't because it overcrowds and takes away the original purpose of such articles. Which is to basically to track medals, the number of people in the delegation and a brief summary of the delegation.

If you want to write paragraghs about what Chinese diplomats say. Make a new dedicated article. Because this page is about the Chinese Olympic delegation..also fyi, WP:NPOV is pushing sensationalised info. "A win by Taiwan over China in badminton increased tensions between the two countries.?? - That press release made it seem like the whole country had issues with Taiwanese badminton players. But they were talking only about Chinese trolls. Not government officials or even the majority of people in China for trolling those Taiwanese badminton players after that one match. It would be grossly unbalanced to claim that a handful of Chinese trolls is the whole country. 49.180.228.204 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I largely agree with the anonymous editor above. A section about politics, controversies, criticisms and reception in the respective country could be added to the pages - but it probably shouldn't. See WP:CSECTION. There's the Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and most controversies and criticism should probably be directed there instead of on the individual countries' pages. The manual of style, while needing an update, is still what we should be following and there is no 'politics' section or anything like it on that. Kaffe42 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a serious misinterpretation of WP:CSECTION - it actually explicitly recommends "Reception" type sections, in direct contradiction to your claim.
And the fact that some outdated Wikiproject style page does not explicitly list a certain section title among its generic list of recommended (not: mandated) standard section does not at all allow us to violate core Wikipedia content policies, such as the requirement to reflect "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
But after reading through the topics at Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, The politic issue flagged above is similarly a controversy. Why is it not appropriate to move the politics section in the china page to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics instead? or is it your views that a See Also page(at the china page politic section) to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics on the China page is more appropriate? Atom105 (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Which political issue? There are a considerable number of them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
As I was saying. Can you imagine putting a Politics section in America Olympic page and putting 4 large paragraphs on what politicians are saying about the issue on Simone Biles or what they say about transgender weightlifters? You don't put it in as the page is simply for the medal count, names of athletes and a short summary of the country. There has to be a universal standard or as another said, 'manual of style' for all class of wiki pages and not have double standards for one country.49.180.228.204 (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
If thats how its framed in the WP:RS then of course I would support putting a politics section on the America Olympic page as I would support it being added to any page if the coverage justified it. Your argument against double standards is a straw man, nobody here is arguing for one. Would you prefer that if the coverage is of just one sport that the information be included under that sport instead of a dedicated politics or responses section? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@HaeB: You mentioned twice "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Let's figure out what is the article's topic, and what can be included as significant views of that topic. My understanding is that the topic is about the delegation's performance and activities at the Games, and significant views of the topic might include: 1. Is the delegation performing well or bad? 2. Is there some activities against Olympic regulations going on? 3. Are some athletes doping? On the other hand, information like "China's officials or other personnel complain about another delegation" has more reason to fit in the said delegation's page as it's more related to their topic. For example, one removed item goes "A win by Taiwan over China in badminton increased tensions between the two countries. Tensions between China and Taiwan over the Olympics has also resulted in increased calls in Taiwan to rename their Olympic team." Yes, it reflects a significant view that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, but what topic exactly, the topic of the China page, or the topic of Taiwan Page, or the topic of Controversy Page? From the very beginning I have never said those items have source issues, all I said is that those are off topic on China page and they should belong to somewhere else. --阿pp (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Also lastly, I don't see why you cannot just move the politics section in the china page to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. It seems like the ideal place already for those kinds of topics. China rejecting Taiwanese independence was never even new. Japanese politicians joking about the Holocaust or Republicans attacking Simone Biles. That's new yet not shown at all in the America or japaneae olympic 2020 page as the page isn't supposed to be focused on controversy by what diplomats have said for every issue during the games. That belongs to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics where controversial issues like Simone Bile, Chinese trolls, transgender weightlifters are already added there.49.180.228.204 (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@49.180.228.204: If thats what people think is best then we can move it to Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics, I’m just not convinced that because we move the main home that we remove all mention of it from the country page. All major controversies and concerns related to a country and the olympics should still be summarized on their national pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: I want to reiterate that the information or summary text provided on Nations page should be directly related to the delegation and athletes. Actions/reactions of other entities or persons that are neither part of the delegation nor being physically at the Games should not be part of the page. Please consider Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics as an acceptable practice of where the line draws between sports and politics on the Nations page. On the Belarus page, the summary of the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya incident strictly focuses on the actions/reactions of the team and the athlete at the Games, while further information like the asylum issue is provided with a link and is not event mentioned in the summary text. --阿pp (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware that we draw a line between sports and politics, how does one do that with the Olympics? Its an international political event at which athletic competitions occur. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't assume you with good faith before, and I still don't. You said the Olympics is "an international political event at which athletic competitions occur". Seriously? --阿pp (talk) 04:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
You are required to assume good faith (see WP:AGF)... Are you saying that the Olympics is not a political event? I think in order to do that one would have to draw a line between politics and sport which as far as I can tell no theorist does... Its only the IOC and they are thoroughly panned for it[2]. The IOC is a political organization, what else would you call it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes I do think the Olympics is not a political event. I would call the IOC an NGO. Let's try to solve another question: Can we draw a line between on topic and off topic on China page? Where is that line? And also I would like to your opinion regarding the section just above this one, on the Overview section at United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics? Could you kindly share your opinion, my good faith editor? --阿pp (talk) 04:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
All NGOs are political organizations, how does one address issues of the public good in a non-political manner? The very conception of the public good is a political one. Do you have any sources which support your assertion that the Olympics are non-political? That seems to be an odd argument to make when the base unit of the Olympics (nation) is a political one. If as you say the page is only for the delegation would you consider politics which involves the delegation to be off-topic? Given as the discussion above has been dormant since the fifth I don’t have anything to add, the OR/SYNTH seems to have been addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
How could we determine something is off topic if we don't agree on what the topic is? Throughout the whole discussion I have stated many times that I believe the topic of Nations of Olympics page is about the delegation and the athletes, and I have quoted WP:OLYMOSNAT to support the point that, China in the article title China at the 2020 Summer Olympics refers to the delegation instead of the country or state in general. Everything directly related to the delegation should not be off topic, for example the mentioning of the Krystsina Tsimanouskaya incident on the Belarus page. I have also tried many times to ask the other side's opinion on what they think the topic of the page is. Unfortunately, I did not get a firm answer.
Regarding whether IOC and Olympics are political. I would like to refer to the Olympic Charter which advocates political neutrality. Also stated by the Olympic Charter: "The Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries. " "The NOCs have the exclusive authority for the representation of their respective countries." These can further prove that the topic of page should be the delegation, and the country's name in such pages' titles refer to their NOCs' representatives.
Last time I checked, on this wikipedia, sports categories are not sub-categories of political categories. For example, Category:2021 in sports does not belong to Category:2021 in politics, and they are both sub of Category:2021. Also you will not find Olympics or other sports events under Category:Political events. Maybe you are right that in fact it is hard to draw a line between politics and sports, but in practice on this wikipedia, there is indeed a practical line somewhere in between. --阿pp (talk) 06:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I hate to be the one to tell you this but political neutrality is itself a political position, its a common misunderstanding. There is no “other” side, there are just other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I expected you would say that, but I hated to see you actually say that. That is clearly sophistry. Based on your logic, even an apple or a watermelon is political because they are politically neutral. Do you think a politics section on watermelon is on topic? You always ignore part of my argument. That's pretty obscene. --阿pp (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Apples and watermelons are fruit, they can not hold or express political opinions... As such they are not politically neutral. You appear to be confusing neutrality with not having a position. As for the last part I suggest you rephrase, you either don’t understand what obscene means or thats a WP:PERSONALATTACK which would be inappropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
You appear to be confusing stating facts with personal attacks. You see, I can also reply to only part of your argument. This kind of practice is obscene and it does not help reaching consensus. --阿pp (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Please review WP:NPA again, stating objectively true facts or facts that you believe to be true can in fact be a personal attack... Please also review WP:ASPERSIONS and [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I am not saying someone is obscene. I am saying that some kind of action is obscene. --阿pp (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Would you be kind enough to say which of the definitions of obscene you are using then? Most of them seem to imply heavy moral or ethical failings on the part of the person accused of doing said obscene actions which would most certainly fall under our general definition of personal attack... Note that actions are not arguments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
"offensive to moral principles" --阿pp (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
That seems like a stretch, which moral principles? Also yes, saying that another editor’s actions are "offensive to moral principles" without providing some serious evidence and explanation is most likely a personal attack. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I think I have explained very clearly, if you believe otherwise, just go ahead make necessary actions against this usage. --阿pp (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Horse Eye's Back. Also as these controversies pertain to the delegation from China, we shouldn't have to go looking in a separate page for this material. FobTown (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
How could a complaint made by a diplomat living in the US on NBC's TV coverage "pertain" to the Olympic delegation competing in Tokyo. Is this diplomat part of and working for the delegation? Is this diplomat going to lose his job after the Olympics? --阿pp (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you really asking how a complaint made by a diplomat living in the US on NBC's TV coverage of the Olympic delegation from China competing in Tokyo pertains to the Olympic delegation from China competing in Tokyo? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
YES. And I think that IP contributor made some good arguments above regarding this. --阿pp (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so you’re proposing that the pages be limited not just to information about the delegation but only to information about the sporting activities of members of the delegation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
No. I have stated several times I am proposing that only information directly related to the delegation and the athletes shall be included. That diplomat's complaint is quite far away from "directly". China delegation at the Games (0) participated in the Opening Ceremony (1), the OC was broadcast by NBC (2), Chinese diplomat complaint on NBC coverage (3). I agree that media's report on the delegation and athletes themselves should be considered directly related. --阿pp (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, so then you are not in theory opposed to having a politics section as long as its directly related to the delegation and the athletes themselves? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Why not do the same to all other countries and add a full paragraph for every single controversial incident? the main focus of the article is the Olympics, the athletes and medals won. Not concerns and controversies which already has a dedicated page. In Japan Olympic page, there is zero mention of how their official joke the Holocaust. Or in America page, there is still zero mention on what specific Republicans say about Simone Biles. Or any other country Olympic page has multiple paragraphs for every individual controversy incident. On China politics, even a single newspaper they get issues with, has an entire paragraph devoted on that incident. That is insane. I agree with 阿p + Kaffe42 that unless other countries also follow that same manual of style, politics will equally go to the dedicated page. Virtually anything can be a related topic in politics. Chinese officials congratulating each athlete is also a related politics topic and we can literally write 20 paragraghs talking about every single praise. Why not add that in or just cherrypicked negative politics? Where is the line here and who defines it? it simply doesn't fit the manual of style - which is the issue - and why all countries' Olympic pages need to follow the same manual of style given to these articles, to be fair.Casualfoodie (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I’m getting the feeling that you’ve never reviewed WP:DUEWEIGHT or WP:NPOV. If reliable sources extensively cover praise given to athletes then so should we, they don’t appear to do that though. Also note that something’s home being at the concerns and controversies page does not mean that a summary of it won’t remain on the original page, rather the opposite in fact as HaeB has kindly reminded you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
To correct an apparent misunderstanding above: For NPOV is not sufficient if relevant material is covered somewhere else on Wikipedia - each article still needs to provide a balanced overview in itself. This is explained e.g. under WP:SPINOFF: ... the moved material must leave a WP:NPOV summary section of that material behind. If it doesn't, then the "spinning off" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others and ignore one viewpoint. . WP:SUMMARY has more related information. Regards, HaeB (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Same person?

Is Olim Kurbanov (olympic 2016) and Olimjon Ishanov (olympic 2020) the same person? They have the same birth and are look-a-likes (see Olim Kurbanov and Olimjon Ishanov) --Fredde (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems so, from these sources [4][5] the show matching results. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, same person. I've merged to the former as that has (barely) more hits. Primefac (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Athletes who withdrew due to COVID

What is the consensus about dealing with athletes who were forced to withdrew from the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics?

  • Do we subtract the number of competitors in their respective "X at the 2020 Summer Paralympic page", their sport and event?
    • If a country only has one competitor in a sport (Chile at the 2020 Summer Olympics - Taekwondo), and that sole athlete withdrew due to COVID. do we remove the section altogether or keep it. Do we add a results table or just a prose about the athlete testing positive for COVID.
  • Do we still include the athlete in the result tables of their event and "X at the 2020 Summer Paralympic page" and list them "DNS" (Did not start)
  • Also does the circumstances of how and when they tested positive for COVID-19 affect how we deal with them (e.g. Athlete who tested positive in their home country vs. Athletes who are already in Tokyo/the Athletes Village who tested positive)

Same goes to the Paralympic pages

Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, athletes who withdrew due to other reasons, even if they never got to Tokyo, were included with DNS or DNC (did not compete - I can't quite remember the difference). Is Kendricks the only "missing" example you could find? So the same should apply for COVID withdrawals. Kingsif (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that if they're listed (for example, Carlos Muñoz Herrera the surfer who couldn't even make it to Tokyo) they should count towards the total, even if they never showed up. Primefac (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Everywhere else we do not count DNS people in competitor totals. If they're in final entry lists or results tables as DNS, we put them in the tables. Otherwise, we discuss them in prose as necessary (rare outside COVID, but I would think much more likely for COVID). I don't think there's any reason to change that for COVID, but maybe? (E.g., Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre butterfly has 16 competitors, not counting Katinka Hosszú who DNS; she's listed in the table because she was on the start list and the official results as a DNS. For men's pole vault, we currently have Chiaraviglio listed as DNS because he was on the start list. Kendricks withdrew early enough to be replaced on the start list, so he's not listed in the results table (but absolutely should be discussed in prose). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Alcibiades FAR

I have nominated Alcibiades for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Order of medal templates in infoboxes

Is there a guideline that says that in BLP infoboxes, medals at the Olympic/Paralympic Games should be at the top of medal templates? I've seen multiple editors moving around the order of medals in infoboxes of bios to put Olympic/Paralympic medals first e.g. on Ali Smith (athlete) to put Paralympic medal above European Championships, Sky Brown to put Olympic medal above World Championship/X Games medals. In my mind, MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL means that the medal templates should be listed in chronological order i.e. oldest medals at the top, newest at the bottom. But I assume that because so many users are changing them, their might be a logical reason/guideline for it? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I always go Olympics, WC, continental, youth. Not saying it is correct, just giving my view. Kante4 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
That order makes sense, Kante4. To throw in another view, within each medal category, my preference is to list the medals in chronological order. I note that's different to what most other editors do, who prefer the gold–silver–bronze order. Schwede66 21:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
It should be Gold-Silver-Bronze, for me. Kante4 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I think we're talking about two different hierarchies here. The initial question seems to be "which competitions should be listed first", then we moved on to "how should the medals be arranged for each competition". Should we follow MOS:BLPCHRONO per competition (e.g. 2016 Olympics, 2018 Commonwealth Games, 2020 Olympics), per event (e.g. medals earned in the Olympics, sorted by year), or something else? Primefac (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
As I see it, there are 3 levels of hierarchy:
  1. Competiton, descending by importance (i.e. Olympics, then WC, then continental and so on).
  2. Medal, descending by 'color', i.e. gold, then silver, then bronze. That's using the same reasoning as the previous level: Most important first.
  3. Date, Ascending per MOS:BLPCHRONO. That is, in every competition, the medal of the same 'color' will be sorted chronologically.
As far as I saw, that is also the most common sorting system. Deancarmeli (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

(withdrawn) Proposal: Standardise order of medal templates

Half-baked, hatting for now

I don't know if this needs to be turned into a formal RFC or if we have enough numbers to get a project-specific consensus, but the above discussion has had three options between four editors, which means we probably need to have at least a local discussion to get consensus.

In infoboxes, how should the "medals-earned" templates be ordered?

  1. In chronological order per MOS:BLPCHRONO
  2. In "Gold-Silver-Bronze" order
  3. In order of "importance", that is Olympics, world champs, continental champs, youth (etc)

For what it's worth I'm mostly indifferent. Probably best to state views in the normal * Option X: format for ease of reading. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I could not fully understand the proposal, since in my opinion all the options presented fit together. My recommendation is that the initial order is by the "importance" of competition. The order within the competition is by gold-silver-bronze. And the order within each of them is a chronological order.Nimrodbr (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hrm, I can see where my confusion was. I'll comment above and only re-open this if I see issues. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

All-time Paralympic Games medal table marked as Unreferenced

Per WP:ORIGINAL: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research".

This article, which is important in my opinion, lacks references and is full of errors. Adding to it, the article is a completely original research, per its header. I've marked it as such, and compiling this message to get more eyes to it. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Summing individual medal tables isn't original research (Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_calculations) - therefore, so long as there are references to all the medal tables for the individual games, I don't see how either banner could apply. SSSB (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
there aren't references to all the medal tables for the individual games, there is only a reference to a database where the can be searched for. More over, WP:NOTOR states that Simple calculations are "Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce". I don't see how it applies for summing the medal tallies of 120+ NPCs over 28 Paralympics Games. Deancarmeli (talk) 09:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I said so long as there are references. If there aren't, then it isn't sourced at this stage.

And I would argue that it can be quickly and easily reproduced. It's addition - you can't get easier than that. And I reckon I could do all the games thus far in 10-15 minutes - then you save the document and it will take you a minute or two to add the data for future games - which is exactly what is done. SSSB (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

It is addition, but not a quick one. Even if there were direct links to the medal tables of all 28 games, a reader wanting to verify the results of just one NPC would have to make 27 acts of addition for each of the 3 medals. And that's not even speaking of someone who'd like to verify the whole table. It is labor intensive. The example in WP:NOTOR refers to calculating the ratio between 2 given numbers. There's a difference between that and adding up 84 ungiven numbers that have to be looked for in 28 different sources. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
The example in WP:NOTOR refers to calculating the ratio between 2 given numbers. - no it doesn't. It gives no defintion of what is and isn't considered quick and easy. It sounds like we are just going to have to agree to disagree on where the boundry of quick and easy lies. Personally, I would verify the table by putting the individual medal tables in a spreadsheet and making the spreadsheet add the relevant numbers. That fits my definition of quick and easy. SSSB (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a reasonable case of different interpretations of the language. When I read Any relatively simple and direct mathematical calculation that reasonably educated readers can be expected to quickly and easily reproduce, I read it to mean the calculation is easy to reproduce; in this case, it is "adding numbers together". As long as the data itself can be verified, then its inclusion in the table is a matter of WP:V and referencing; as long as the summation is simple, there is no issue with WP:OR. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Flag bearers or parade of nations? Batch of requested moves

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Israli paralympic female competitor Michal Escapa (IPC profile) is also a swimmer?

How many chances are there that another woman named Escapa has always competed in Tokyo 1964 but for Italy and winning two medals in swimming? --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1964 Summer Olympics national flag bearers#Requested move 13 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1964 Summer Olympics national flag bearers#Requested move 13 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The IOC has made all the linked result PDFs on each swimming page dead. Are these available anywhere else so the links can be fixed?

See the linked finals and heats PDFs on this page for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swimming_at_the_2020_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Women%27s_4_%C3%97_100_metre_freestyle_relay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apophis82 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@Apophis82: You can try to look them up on the Internet Archive. Deancarmeli (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

What is "Bronze/Final"?

In a few articles, such as Tennis at the 2020 Summer Olympics, I see "Bronze/Final". Does this mean something different from the common "Bronze final", or can I just go ahead and change it? Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Never mind. Clearly it means "Bronze & final" so I changed to that in the table. Dicklyon (talk) 20:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Tokyo sailing results

Hi, I'm afraid I don't have time to fix it right now (and I'm not sure which is the right style), but I noticed that on Sailing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – 49er and Sailing at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Laser Radial the medal race points aren't doubled (instead reflecting the finishing places), while on the rest of the results from Tokyo they are. HornetMike (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

AFD

Hi. Please see this AFD for a deletion discussion related to Francis English, a rower at the 1932 Olympic games. THanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sports venues guideline

Hi. People of this project may be interested in this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Stefan Mitrović#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Stefan Mitrović#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding articles about Olympic countries. Can you check whether it is possible to add links for the specific games the country competed in and the dates which the games were arranged. F.ex. United States at the 1936 Winter Olympics etc. Yours sincerely, Sondre --193.161.216.9 (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

They are linked from the tables at Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Summer articles and Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Winter articles. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Hi. Please see this AfD for a Norwegian female fencer. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Two more AfDs

Hi. Please see the following AfDs:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And another:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

And another:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Independent Olympians - discussion needed

I don't have the time right now to investigate recent changes to Independent_Olympians_at_the_Olympic_Games, which has a discussion here, but I definitely believe it needs more eyes. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Olympic Games. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Another AfD

Hi. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvador Alanís. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NOLYMPICS) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NOLYMPICS] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Competition pages for 2022 Winter Olympics

Building up on what has already been done before me, I completed creation of pages on individual competitions at the 2022 Olympics, which start in the beginning of February. The pages are available from {{Events at the 2022 Winter Olympics}} and then one more click from the event page to the specific competition page. They are basically stubs indicating the schedule, the location, and having necessary templates. However, we have now a chance to depart from our usual format "statistical result table, copied and pasted from the official Olympics site" which unfortunately is predominant in the English Wikipedia, and create something more comprehensible. We of course have WP:CRYSTAL, and most information will only be available on the competition day, however, reliable secondary sources are already busy writing about the competitions, and there is already some information available which can be added - forecasts (these get missed every time, because after the Olympics nobody cares), which defending champions/medalists are not available to defend the title/medal (retired, injured, did not qualify), which records currenty are set (for the sports where this applies such as speed skating), who are the season cup leaders (for the sports where this applies) and so on. I hope we can create something more encyclopedic this time than just a collection of the tables of results.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have started doing this, done luge, figure skating and biathlon (not yet complete, but will likely finish today). This is an example of a sourced info where I could find predictions in RS, and this is an example where I did not spend much time looking for predictions and just added background info on the world cup standing. I will continue this work, and any help is welcome here, since after the games have started, both searching for predictions and finding current World cup standings will become significantly more difficult. Ideally we have this information inserted to all relevant articles before the start of the Olympics in less than two weeks.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles about Figure skating at the Olympics

Hello! Can you add articles about Figure skating at the Olympics?. For example for the Figure skating events at the Olympics from 1964 until 1992. Example men's singles, Ladies' singles, Ice dancing and Pairs. It would be valuable to have articles about those events. Yours sincerely, Sondre --88.89.14.227 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not my priority right now, but I was planning to do it later.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Three Olympic medalists at AfD

Hi. Please see the following discussions:

Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Naming discussion at WT:SPORTS

There's a mostly-Olympics-related naming discussion happening at WT:SPORTS, please feel free to join in the discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposals

There are several proposals located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability to either abolish or significantly rewrite WP:NSPORT which may be of interest to this project's editors. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Titling RFC

There is a titling RFC at WT:AT#RFC on dash-separated titles for sports events that could affect articles at this project. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

There was no consensus on the dash and caps issues in that RFC. Subsequently, the Tennis project has decided to move to the same scheme as Multi-Sport articles such as Olympics, in using sentence case (e.g. Men's Singles) as opposed to title case (Men's Singles) in tennis articles. Those moves have been done. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Independent Olympic Participants at the 2014 Winter Olympics page move

Hi. Please see this discusssion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardizing short descriptions for main Olympics pages

Hi all,

I've noticed that the short descriptions for the main Olympics articles are not really uniform and don't necessarily conform to the purposes of a short desc. I created a page where you can see them as they currently stand. It's clear that editors have tried to standardize these before, but have not necessarily succeeded. There are many issues:

  • The Summer and Winter Games have different formats (Games of the #### Olympiad vs. #th edition of the Winter Olympics), when I personally think they should use the same. (I also think adding a counter, Roman numeral or otherwise, is a waste of space in a short description.)
  • We have a lot of duplication of article title content in the short description.
    • "Winter Games" in Winter Olympics articles
    • One could argue that "Olympiad" is a duplication of "Olympics"
    • Many articles include in [year] in the description when the article titles all start with the year
  • The language and formatting is fragmented.
    • For summer games, we see both held in [city] and celebrated in [city], the latter of which is worse because it's much longer
    • Sometimes we see the games are held in [city], [country], other times we see held in [city] ([country])—notice the parentheses
  • Many of them are simply way too long.
    • Olympic Games of 1908, officially the 'Games of the IV Olympiad', and commonly known as London 1908 (99 characters)
    • Games of the XIII Olympiad, scheduled in London in 1944 and later canceled due to World War II (94 characters)
    • 13th edition of Olympic Winter Games, held in Lake Placid, New York, USA between 13–24 February 1980 (100 characters)
  • A few articles lack a description entirely.
    • 1940 Summer and Winter
    • 1944 Winter

I think it would be nice to have a uniform description across all articles (with notable exceptions, e.g. the 2020 games that took place in 2021, the 1916 games that never came to be, etc.) I propose we use the following format: Sporting event held in [city], [country].

This leaves plenty of space to add the location before surpassing the 40-character soft limit, doesn't duplicate anything from the article titles, and is simple enough for both editors and readers. I wish we could include "international" at the front, but there really isn't the space, and everyone from a young age knows that the games are a worldwide event. "Major" could be nice to include at the front if there is desire.

Would love to hear your opinions. Thrakkx (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Trials"

A lot of Olympic articles contain "Trials" capitalized (e.g. in Category:United States Summer Olympics Trials), while sources mostly don't do that. Does anyone know a reason for that, or should I just set about fixing? Dicklyon (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I made some edits (no moves yet). Please take a look. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

And I started an RM discussion at Talk:United States Olympic Trials (track and field)#Requested move 11 February 2022. Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Grouping of tables on country pages

Should sport specific sections of country pages be grouped by athlete or by event? Or does this differ by sport? There seems to be quite a variety on the table formats across articles.

By athlete

Athlete Event Qualification First round Final Total
Distance Points Rank Distance Points Rank Distance Points Rank Points Rank
Antti Aalto Normal hill 87.5 93.6 42 Q 80.0 60.8 50 Did not advance
Large hill 133.0 109.3 20 Q 121.5 105.7 =37 Did not advance
Janne Ahonen Normal hill 89.0 95.8 37 Q 90.5 85.1 40 Did not advance
Large hill 119.0 90.8 36 Q 124.5 110.6 30 Q 115.5 100.0 28 210.6 28

By event

Athlete Event Classical Freestyle Final
Time Rank Time Rank Time Deficit Rank
Ristomatti Hakola 15 km classical — 40:49.6 +2:54.8 28
Perttu Hyvärinen — 39:00.2 +1:05.4 6
Remi Lindholm — 41:40.0 +3:45.2 45
Iivo Niskanen — 37:54.8 - 1st place, gold medalist(s)
Perttu Hyvärinen 30 km skiathlon 40:13.1 7 38:37.6 9 1:19:22.4 3:12.6 7
Remi Lindholm 41:39.5 30 39:35.9 24 1:21:49.4 5:39.6 25
Iivo Niskanen 39:06.1 2 38:33.4 7 1:18:10.0 2:00.2 3rd place, bronze medalist(s)

--Luccis (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like this (Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations)) doesn't address this issue either --Luccis (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Freestyle skiing: Women's slope

I think it's been delayed 12 or 24 hrs, due to weather conditions. Though not certain. GoodDay (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yup, it's been delayed. But, I don't know how to update the graphics from Feb 13/14 to Feb 14/15. GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

East Timor or Timor Leste

I noticed a lot of our Olympic articles refer to the country of East Timor as that. However, during the Olympics, the country enters under "Timor Leste", and the logo of the NOC has Timor Leste on it. So which one is correct? Which one should be used? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It does appear that their official name (according to literally everyone) is Timor-Leste, so whichever Anglophile group of WP editors decided that East Timor "just had to be the right way" because heaven forbid we use someone's actual name as their official name instead of Good Old English... was wrong?
I think this is a site-wide issue, not just an Olympics issue, and I would be in support of (and willing to throw my bot behind) a proposal to change all instances from East Timor to Timor-Leste. Primefac (talk) 12:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I would support the proposal! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Hrm, I should have figured it, but there are a lot of proposals listed at Talk:East Timor for past RMs to change the name. Might be a bit of an uphill battle. Primefac (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
What about changing it for just Olympic related articles? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
It must be the same issue as Taiwan vs Chinese Taipei. Changing the name only for Olympic articles seems to be reasonable.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, and as the WikiProject connected with those pages, we should be able to use a project-specific "local" consensus to update those names to match the official Olympic titles. A good point with Chinese Taipei, which reminds me Republic of China (Formosa) at the 1960 Summer Olympics should probably just be Formosa at the 1960 Summer Olympics for consistency. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

With no actual opposition after a couple of weeks, I'll probably start moving pages over the weekend. I'll likely start with the data modules first and then start moving pages, but either way there might be some odd behaviour until that gets sorted. Primefac (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I got overruled; the RM is at Talk:East_Timor_at_the_Olympics. Primefac (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

ROC at the Olympics

Now that the ROC has appeared in two Games, we should really have a ROC at the Olympics page like we do for Unified Team at the Olympics. Right now it points to the Independent athletes pages, which is understandable, but not entirely correct. These are not "technically" independent athletes, like OAR. These are athletes representing the NOC of Russia, but not the country itself. There is another issue with the IOC flag template, as it's currently using Republic of China, unless 2020 or 2022 is used. Is there a way around that? Jmj713 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I just realized we have Russian Olympic Committee at the Olympics already which is great, but I had no idea, and also "flagIOCteam|ROC" only works with "2020 Summer" and "2022 Winter. How do we use this template to link to this overview article? Jmj713 (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Moreover. OAR (2018) and ROC (2020 and 2022) must be the same infobox/entity. It's just a renaming situation, not different entities. Something like Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics. Complete analogy: different names and codes, but one essence. Nitobus (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree here, because as I mentioned elsewhere, Russia's NOC was banned and suspended when OAR participated, that was effectively an independent team of Russian athletes, so ROC and OAR are separate but related appearances of RUS. Using your analogy with YUG, we'd be combining their IOP appearance in 1992 but we do not. Jmj713 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Jmj713's disagreement - OAR and ROC are fundamentally different entities, as they are from RUS. Primefac (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm coming around to the "it's like the Unified Team" angle... I would still like to leave this up for a few days to solicit more opinions, but barring any major opposition I'll start the backend code-work next week. Primefac (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Putting aside the IOC's weak ban of Russia. I don't know, whether or not the OAR & ROC teams should be considered the same entity. Aside from the former being allowed to mention they were from Russia & the latter not being allowed? They both were teams composed of Russian athletes. PS - How does the IPC handle them? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Right, we wouldn't be saying OAR and ROC are the same entity (this is why they should be unmerged from the all-time table). But they are two separate but related appearances of RUS. Jmj713 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so this should be done, but if folks could double-check my work that would be great; I believe I caught every edge-case of overlap between (Republic of) China and ROC, but there might have been some cacheing issues that caused me to overlook things (or unintentionally break different things). Primefac (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

East Timor at the Olympics page moves

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Background info and initial discussion at § #East Timor or Timor Leste above. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you - I missed that convo. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries, it's pretty far up the page so I'm not surprised (my comment was more of an update anyway). Primefac (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardizing spelling (upper-case or lower-case) in tables (medal by games)

Hi all,

with regard to non-participation in the Olympic Games, different spellings (upper-case or lower-case) are used in the tables (medal by games) for the individual nations. 

 (in most wiki articles)
 Option(a)
 " Did not participate "
 example:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_at_the_Olympics

 (second most)
 Option (b)
 " did not participate "
 example:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_at_the_Olympics

 (rare)
 Option (c)
 " Did not Participate "
 example:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo_at_the_Olympics&oldid=1071478384

I myself would prefer option (b) and have edited it to this option in many articles. But since I don't want to introduce a preferred standard unilaterally, I wanted to ask what the actual standard is or should be. Maybe it doesn't matter, but it actually bothers me that it's not uniform.

Thanks Miria~01 (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Miria~01, your option (a) is correct as per MOS:SENTENCECAPS (read together with the footnote). Schwede66 18:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Miria~01, thank you for raising the issue of standardizing the participation tables once again. I started a related and more global discussion here, and would love to revive it so each such table has a uniform look based on consensus. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_18#NOC_at_the_Olympics_articles Jmj713 (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sentence case (a) look appropriate in that context. Note that this has nothing to do with spelling; it's styling. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
    Also Future event in sentence case? The footnote that Schwede66 mentions says, "Wikipedia uses sentence case for sentences, article titles, section titles, table headers, image captions, list entries (in most cases), and entries in infoboxes and similar templates, among other things." but it's not clear if that includes table entries that are not sentence-like ("Did not participate" is a sentence, and could take a period). So maybe "future event"? See for example Estonia at the Olympics, which has a mix of "Future Event" and "future event". Dicklyon (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

@Swede66 thanks for the link to the "Wikpedia:Manual of Style"

The manual mentions the follwing:
In a list, if each item of the list is a complete sentence, then it should be capitalized like any other sentence. If the list items are sentence fragments, then capitalization should be consistent – sentence case should be applied to either all or none of the items. See WP:Manual of Style § Bulleted and numbered lists.

---> As I understand this in the context, there are two possibilities: 

 @Dicklyon
 Can really a fragment like "Did not particpate" without a subject really be seen as a sentence ?
 As I know, only imperative sentences like "Do not particpate !" can be written without subjects in English and be seen as a sentence.
The implicit subject is pretty informal, a sentence fragment if you wish. Another way is to include the subject, as "Kuwait did not participate" in List of flag bearers for Kuwait at the Olympics. Still no period there, even though it's a complete sentence. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 ----------------------------
 But as  @Jmj713 already said, I would also appreciate it, if we would agree on a style based on consensus.
 So this what I would prefer:
 
 - as part of ...  = lower-case
 - not participated instead of did not participate
 (only the past particple instead of the past conjugation) 
-  Future Event  = with capital letters   ---> future event = lower case
It's not clear why you say you'd prefer capping "Future Event". There's no way that's allowable under MOS:CAPS. And if the other table entries are lowercase, as you prefer, then this one would be, too. Dicklyon (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Have now completely discarded this view and fully share your opinion
---> either everything in lower-case or sentence case (see thread immediately below) - Miria~01 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Medals by Summer Games (preferred style)

Games Athletes Gold Silver Bronze Total Rank
1896–1912 as part of the  Russian Empire (RU1),  Austria (AUT) and
 Hungary (HUN)
1920 Antwerp as part of  Czechoslovakia (TCH)
1924–1936 as part of  Czechoslovakia (TCH),  Poland (POL) and
 Romania (ROM)
1948 London not participated did not participate
1952–1988 as part of the  Soviet Union (URS)
1992 Barcelona as part of the  Unified Team (EUN)
1996 Atlanta 231 9 2 12 23 9
2000 Sydney 230 3 10 10 23 21
2004 Athens 239 8 5 9 22 13
2008 Beijing 243 7 4 11 22 12
2012 London 238 5 4 10 19 14
2016 Rio de Janeiro 203 2 5 4 11 31
2020 Tokyo 155 1 6 12 19 44
2024 Paris Future Event future event
2028 Los Angeles
2032 Brisbane
Total 35 36 68 139 35

Miria~01 (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

“did not participate” sounds better to me grammatically than “not participated”. Also would like to add that we should only say this line if a NOC did not make an appearance, and not include a reason, as sometimes I have seen things like “boycotted” or “banned” etc. Jmj713 (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, d'accord with "did not participate".

To be honest, what really bothers me is when I see "As part of..." capitalized instead of "as part of..." in lower case.
This looks bad in my opinion in terms of style. Hence my appeal to take the lower-case variant like from the first table here in the talk (it should even be conform to the WIKI:Manual style, as i mentioned).

I totally agree with the second point. A reason is not necessary. In addition, it is not necessary to edit a non-participation before the first participation (as it is correct for example for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_at_the_Olympics or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_at_the_Olympics)

Another point: Summer and Winter tables should be placed in a double column (as it is for the most, but not in all) 

Miria~01 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree that lower case looks better stylistically and Summer and Winter tables should be set in a double column. Jmj713 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Flag fixes needed

I just wanted to mention here that the flag of Austria in the Ukraine table is wrong, it should be black and yellow, not the current flag of Austria. The same with Hungary, the flag used then was different. See how Slovenia at the Olympics has this sorted. --Tone 09:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention. The historical flags has been replaced with the flags of the Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Hungary and the Second Polish Republic (flag used from 1928 until 1980) as well -Miria~01 (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Race started vs was started

An IP editor is going through articles on all Olympic events (hundreds of them) and replaces "the race was started" with "the race started" (example). I have already seen some of these reverted. Which one is correct?--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The IP revision is more to the point. The word 'was' is not necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Haiti at the Winter Olympics

Haiti made their debut at Winter Olympics in 2022, but they don't have a list of their Winter appearances in their infobox. Saudi Arabia also made their debut in 2022 but they have their list in the infobox, so could someone add it for Haiti ? Thanks Luks25 (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

LGBT Olympians

Hi. An IP editor has added content such as this. Thoughts? Is the site a WP:RS? Looks like a blog to me, but I could be wrong. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

It's an imprint of Vox Media, and the individual who wrote the article was the one that started OutSports in the first place. That being said, it's listed as a blog by SBNation, so my primary thought is that it shouldn't be used. Additionally, the tone was incredibly improper so I reverted the edit. Primefac (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Prime! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Outsports is a serious and good source --92.76.96.249 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Says who? Do you work/write for them? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 05:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
That's a pretty awful showing of bad faith - "someone disagrees with me so I'll accuse COI". Well, I can confirm Outsports is generally treated as a good and reliable source, dude. Anyone who has read it will probably agree it is not written in blog format at all, but then anyone who has read the Wikipedia policy on blogs as sources knows that the restriction is set because "any random Joe can have a blog" - imprints of reliable media, especially if they originate back in the age when "blogs" were just cool ways of reporting media, are usually fine. Look for the editorial details before wholesale writing off sources you're unfamiliar with. Kingsif (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
To clarify/restate my initial intent, if it is considered a reliable source then that's totally fine (I was unsure, as I'm sure my waffling language made clear). My primary concern with the specific diff linked by the OP was the tone - she didn't "out herself", she was listed as a lesbian by a publication with no clear indication as to how that information came to light.
On a minor note, for an article as short as Sherry Cassuto, I'm not sure it's particularly relevant that her sexual orientation be specifically mentioned in the lead. Primefac (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of 2022 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster templates

Template:2022 Winter Olympics Canada women's ice hockey team roster and other Category:2022 Winter Olympics ice hockey team roster templates have been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Neutral notice of an RfC

Hi. Please see this RfC. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion"

IOC source: Compact overviews for medals in the Winter Olympics of each NOC by discipline and by Winter Games (1924-2018)

Examples: ROC (here are even listed the previous results for RUS) https://olympics.com/beijing-2022/olympic-games/en/results/all-sports/noc-profile-roc.htm#participation or CAN https://olympics.com/beijing-2022/olympic-games/en/results/all-sports/noc-profile-canada.htm#participation.

It may be of interest to some to have an official IOC source for medals for each NOC in the Winter Games (Medals won at previous Olympic Winter Games by discipline and by Winter Games until 2018). The compact overviews could be used for matching with the tables in the wiki-articles for each NOC and to verify that there are no discrepancies (especially medals by discipline). Unfortunately, I could not find a similar compact overview for each NOC as a source from the IOC for the summer games. –Miria~01 (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardizing medals/participation tables

Taking the above discussion, I wanted to turn our attention to this previous discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_18#NOC_at_the_Olympics_articles Hopefully we can arrive at a consensus for the look and feel of these tables, their placement, etc. Here are the points I raised from this discussion last year, plus some from the preceding discussion:

  1. ) every Games the NOC appeared in, the number of athletes (linked to that NOC's year at the Olympics), medals won if any, total medals, and rank (linked to that year's medal table; rank should only be by gold, not overall as I have seen some countries add, such as the United States);
  2. ) there should not be separate columns for sports/events;
  3. ) the formatting should be unified and identical (same colors, font-size (90%), hosting highlight);
  4. ) the spanned text should be italicized and I believe should not be capitalized ("as part of", "did not participate", "future event");
  5. ) if a NOC did not participate for more than 3 consecutive Games, that row should be collapsed and the absence between games shown with two dates and an en-dash;
  6. ) if a NOC previously was part of another NOC (such as Azerbaijan part of the Soviet Union), that participation should also be noted and the row spanned;
  7. ) participation under different names/NOCs should strictly follow IOC records (and our All-Time table), so, for example Rhodesia and Zimbabwe should be combined, and post-breakup Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro, while pre-Civil War Republic of China is not combined with Chinese Taipei or China;
  8. ) the only bolding of numbers within the table should be the totals (should not bold highest amounts of medals or athletes);
  9. ) all-time (total) rank should be verified with the ranked All-Time table;
  10. ) Summer and Winter tables should be set in a double column;
  11. ) propose renaming the section to "Overview of Olympic participation" and Summer and Winter tables to "NOC at the Summer Olympics" (with an optional link to the main such article);
  12. ) section should be placed as high at the top of the article as possible;
  13. ) section should not have a "See also" link at the top to All-time list (redundant, as it's also linked in the totals, and we're looking to move away from medals with a view to participation).

Thoughts, comments, additions? Jmj713 (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

  • For the record, sentence case is most in line with MOS but it does allow lower case so if we gain consensus for that, I won't mind. But constructions like "Future Event" are plain wrong; it's either sentence case or everything in lower case. Schwede66 22:54, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure future events should appear in the table. If the point of this section is to give an overview, then there is no information about future events regarding the participation of NOC: how many athletes will qualify, in which sports. To indicate in the table that there are games in the future seems unnecessary to me. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree, we should just take those out. There seem to be about 200 of these content-free table rows. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

made test-edits (undone after test) for three articles according to the recommendations
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Netherlands_at_the_Olympics&oldid=1071710213
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australia_at_the_Olympics&oldid=1071710101
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poland_at_the_Olympics&oldid=1071710002

---> Order of sections (if exists)
1) History
2) Olympic Bids and Hosted Games
3) Overview of Olympic participation

I appreciate any other suggestions or thoughts to the formatting. Miria~01 (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Miria~01 "Olympic Bids and Hosted Games" is entirely inconsistent with the MOS. Please read MOS:HEADINGS and when you do, you will realise that it must be "Olympic bids and hosted Games" (yes, Games is a proper noun in this context; the other words are not). Schwede66 01:55, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Schwede66.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Mistake by me, carelessly not paid attention to it and used title case, but thanks for clarification regarding proper nouns. Apart from that, is this variant acceptable for you all with naming and the order?
If there are no objections, I would at least check off this point regarding sections (naming an order) as such

1 History
2 Olympic bids and hosted Games
     2.1 Hosted Games
     2.2 Unsuccessful bids
3 Overview of Olympic participation
     3.1 Timeline of participation
     3.2 Medals by Summer Games
     3.3 Medals by Winter Games
     3.4 Medals by summer sport
     3.5 Medals by winter sport

↑ 12.) Section Overview of Olympic participation should be placed as high at the top of the article as possible (at least on third position, only relegated by History and Olympic bids and hosted Games, if existent)

And just as indicated in the fourth point above, also I would apply this style.
↑ 4.) the spanned text should be italicized and not be capitalized ("as part of", "did not participate", "future event")
:: Miria~01 (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Just added another suggestion to move away completely from focusing on "medals" in the participation tables, see above, thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Miria~01 or Dicklyon, would you be able to tackle the other points I raised above for standard formatting? I haven't seen any opposition so I assume everyone is okay with these proposed 13 points of uniformity across the tables. Jmj713 (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I have different opinion on two points:
(1.) I actually think the additional information with the overall ranking (total medals) per games quite good (especially USA is very informative)
(13.) in my view the link in the "See also: All-time Olympic Games medal table" is a quick eye-catcher, especially for newcomers with interest for the Olympics
In my estimation, the majority will probably agree on the remaining points.
-----------------------
(11.) it is Dicklyon possible to rename "Medal Tables" or "Medal by Games" (see China at the Olympics) to "Overview of Olympic participation" with a JBW job to quickly solve it for all NOCs at the Olympics?
Another small addition: it would be nice if we recorded these points here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) - Miria~01 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Show us a couple of edits that do exactly what you want, and if there's consensus to go that way I can probably whip it out quickly with JWB. But shouldn't "Medal by Games" be "Medals by Games"? Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Medal tables
See also: All-time Olympic Games medal table

*Red border colour indicates tournament was held on home soil. 		Overview of Olympic participation
See also: All-time Olympic Games medal table
*Red border colour indicates tournament was held on home soil.

Reduced France at the Olympics to illustrate it. The example with China was meant in such a way that instead of "Medal Tables" it said "Medal by Games" ... just for information that the header could not be the same everywhere, which should all be renamed to Overview of Olympic participation. Here is also the link (See also: All-time ...), which hangs in the air as point (13.) for removal in all "NOCs at the Olympics". I personally would leave it. - Miria~01 (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I need to see a couple of actual diffs of what you're proposing. If it's literally just one string replace, that's trivial; if what you're asking for is more variable, we need to work out a pattern that does the right thing. So change a few, see if everyone agrees, and then we can semi-automate that. Also, the article doesn't define NOC, so it looks pretty cryptic compared to what's there now. Dicklyon (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Exactly, it's simply renaming the current participation table section from "Medal Tables" or whichever variants we may have, to "Overview of Olympic participation", and renaming the Summer and Winter table headings as well to [NOC] at the Summer/Winter Olympics. But not actually "NOC" but the name of the nation, so it would be "France at the Summer/Winter Olympics" in the above case. If this seems unnecessary or too difficult, perhaps simplify it to "Summer/Winter Olympics appearances"? But the main point and idea is to move away from "medals". Jmj713 (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry for the table issue (thanked Primefac for fixing it). @Dicklyon the trivial thing should really only be the string as header (in H2) for the section like "Medal tables" (or similar "Medal by Game") and should then be replaced with the header "Overview of Olympic participation". For the second (sorry for the ambiguity in the table), as Jmj713 mentioned, the header (ín H3) for the subsection of h2 "Medals by Summer Games" replaced with "xxx at the Summer Olympics" ( xxx ≙ the string in the link of the related article ".../wiki/xxx_at_the_Olympics" of the NOC\Nation ) and equally the same with winter. I hope that's roughly understandable. Here are some diffs [6],[7], [8] as an example. Its actually only replaced strings, as you said, but it would be nice, if it is possible to rename the sections for all NOCs (or hopefully most of them) at once. –Miria~01 (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
You'll need a better hacker than me to figure out to pick up the country name and substitute it in there. If someone can show me how to do that with JWB, I'd be happy to learn. I'd still like to see a couple of actual diffs like what you'd want done in JWB. Dicklyon (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, if that's too complex we'll have to do it manually, or go with a more generic "Summer/Winter Olympics appearances". Jmj713 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
OK no problem. I'll first familiarize myself with JBW beforehand, what is possible. But if there are no objections, I would also manually adjust the style for all NOCs step by step (according to Jmj713 points above). As an example Germany at the Olympics, Australia at the Olympics, Netherlands at the Olympics and France at the Olympics. –Miria~01 (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
JWB is like AWB, but not quite. See AWB find and replace and AWB regex. I've been figuring out how to do a lot with regular expressions, but I haven't been able to make special tokens such as %%pagename%% work in JWB. And I don't do Windows, so no AWB for me. Maybe you can handle? Or we can ask at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks for someone who can do it or tell us how. Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Is this OK?

It seems to me that we're mostly all OK with "did not participate", "future event", and "as part of" (that is, all lowercase in table entries). We might also do some future event removals, some section reorderings, and some heading changes. For now, if there's no objection, I'll run a 5-minute JWB job to change 207 articles to use these lowercase items in tables. Dicklyon (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay with me, but we should make sure we're working on all NOC pages, there should be more than 207: See Template:Nations at the Olympics (which to be honest, I'm not even 100% certain contains every "NOC at the Olympics" article. Jmj713 (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I was looking at titles ending with "at the Olympics". Merging articles that use that template, I get almost exactly the same 210, maybe 1 more (not counting ones in which my patterns make no changes). I'll make sure to hit them all. Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
I ran a few edits via JWB. Will do more if nobody complains in a few hours. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Let me know if I should do more; or less. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. If the consensus switches to sentence case, let me know, and I'll switch it back to that. I also changed a "As part of Independent Olympic Athletes" to "as independent Olympic athletes" and some similar downcasings. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
And I apologize for accidentally allowing my JWB file list to include this talk page. I often forget to restrict searches to article space. I thanked Schwede66 for undoing that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm think that future events should not appear in the table. The point of this section is to give an overview, then there is no information about future events regarding the participation of NOC so to indicate that there are games in the future seems unnecessary to me. Nimrodbr (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm not sure "future event" is really necessary, and it's not a given that a NOC will make an appearance. Jmj713 (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Whether they participate or not, the entry will still be there; either it will give information or it will say "did not participate." The +4 years notation isn't really hard to understand, but it's not exactly problematic to list the 2024 Summer Olympics in the table, should someone be curious where it's taking place. Primefac (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree that one future event make sense to show what's coming up. But not more than just the immediately next one. Dicklyon (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Comment regarding point #1 at beginning of this discussion: "Rank by gold" should be in accordance with the "gold first" method described in Olympic medal table. Presumption is that this is what is meant. Jeff in CA (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The point refers to whether another column of rank by total medals is allowed. Perhaps it shouldn't be an additional requirement, but it could be left if it already exists in the table as it in USA at the Olympics (example of minimized table below)
Games Athletes Gold Silver Bronze Total Gold medals Total medals
1896 Athens 14 11 7 2 20 1 2
1900 Paris 75 19 14 15 48 2 2
1904 St. Louis 526 76 78 77 231 1 1
1908 London 122 23 12 12 47 2 2
1912 Stockholm 174 25 19 19 63 1 2
2004 Athens 613 36 39 26 101 1 1
2008 Beijing 596 36 39 37 112 2 1
2012 London 530 47 27 30 104 1 1
2016 Rio de Janeiro 554 46 37 38 121 1 1
2020 Tokyo 613 39 41 33 113 1 1
Total 1060 831 738 2629 1 1
–Miria~01 (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Belarus and Russia

The last 48 hours have been quite interesting, with RPC and the Belarusian delegations being renamed as Neutral Paralympic Athletes and then banned altogether. After a technical discussion about displays turned article-related, I thought I'd bring it here for further discussion.

The basic question is: should the NPA page be kept, or should it be redirected to 2022 Winter Paralympics per our usual protocol of "they didn't actually compete"? Primefac (talk) 10:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I would say it should be merged (only relevant parts obviously).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, the article should be deleted, and the issue should be mentioned in the articles of Russia and Belarus.Nimrodbr (talk) 11:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia at the Paralympics infobox

I've been trying to 'grey fade' the year 2022 in the infobox, of the article. But to no avail. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I know what you're getting at, and I think I've fixed it. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Brazil Winter Paralympics appearances / Bosnia and Herzegovina appearances

Brazil have 3 Winter Paralympics appearances as we can see here: Brazil at the 2022 Winter Paralympics, however they are not included in the Brazil at the Paralympics' infobox. The same applies to Bosnia and Herzegovina (they have 4 Winter Paralympics appearances) however they are not included in their Bosnia and Herzegovina at the Paralympics infobox, so could someone add it? Thanks Luks25 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorted. Primefac (talk) 08:36, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! I just found out that all the following committees also don't have their Winter Paralympics appearances (and all of them had competed) in their infobox: Armenia, Australia, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Iran, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, North Korea, Romania, Serbia, South Korea, Soviet Union, Spain, Tajikistan, Turkey and Unified Team, so could someone add it? Thanks Luks25 (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Reliability of sources and which Prince Murat?

I have been working through the articles we have related to equestrian at the 1900 Summer Olympics, particularly the participants with a view to expanding their biographies where possible. In several instances, the main source we seem to be heavily reliant on for basic biographical detail (i.e. Olympedia) does not agree with contemporary sources of the day. There also seems to have been a certain amount of guesswork involved by those compiling the database – a nod to this is given in several of our articles, e.g. sometimes the named individual may be the owner rather than the rider, and no-one seems to really know who rode Ludlow in the high jump (incidentally, why have we decided that it was Georges Van Der Poele and not André Moreau?).

So, my first question is this: how reliable do we consider Olympedia, Bill Mallon, Herman de Wael, etc., especially with regards to early Olympics? I am aware that they may be well-respected and some of them have heavily influenced official Olympic records but at this point, I'm thinking they are not very reliable for this era with respect to identifying forenames, dates, etc., and seem to just be best guesses in many cases. In other words, do they actually identify the correct people, not just people with the same/similar names?

You can ask Dr. Mallon himself here, or any of the other experts that run the Olympstats blog (they also run/ran Olympedia and its predecessor). Jeff in CA (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Ask them how reliable they think they are? Not sure that's going to help with respect to WP:RS. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who discounts the reliability of Dr. Bill Mallon and the other founding members of the International Society of Olympic Historians does so at their own peril. All of them are meticulous in their research and to suggest otherwise is laughable. Does this mean there can’t be mistakes, corrections, or new information? Of course not. But if one knows their work, one knows that they are fastidious in their efforts to properly identify Olympic athletes. Yes, ask questions. But to suppose that "they are not very reliable for this era" is a grave mistake.Jeff in CA (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Given the number of details in a very limited sample size that do not correlate with contemporary sources, questioning the reliability in this area/era is beyond reasonable. Indeed, the mistake would be blindly accepting them at face value. Fwiw, I also have concerns there are Wikipedia editors contributing to these databases and referencing their own work. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I concur with Jeff in CA. Schwede66 00:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but unlike Lugnuts thoughtful response below, I find Jeff's response to be oddly aggressive and defensive. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
My problem with the Olympstats blog is that the website itself has almost no information about the authors or their connections to this "International Society of Olympic Historians".
For example a recent addition of Olympian material to Pac-12 is solely sourced to an Olympstats blog post attributed only to "BMALLON".
As is, the blog would seem to fail the 2 WP:USESPS bullet points below with no evidence that they are being met:
  • It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
  • It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as independent editorial oversight or independent peer review processes.
The site has no About page. The "Contact Us" link is broken. Clicking an author's name just brings up all of their posts, not a biography. There is no content on the site other than statistics blog posts.
PKAMB (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

For anyone interested, having continued researching Equestrian at the 1900 Summer Olympics (for info, I happened upon this randomly via an associated biog-stub that had been redirected), I need to raise these concerns again. It's still fairly early stages but as indicated I have found a surprising number of discrepancies between the sources we are using in our articles (i.e. Mallon, de Wael, Olympedia/Sports-Reference, etc.) and what appeared in contemporary sources at the time, and they have only increased; e.g. from one probable mis-identification to three, and no mentions being found of competitors listed by some sources. By event:

  1. Jumping (issues with 7/16 identified competitors in our article): 2 probable mis-identified people (Murat & Haëntjens), 4 probable mis-spellings (most probably from the Journal des Sports report), 1 competitor not (yet) found in contemporary sources;
    also, up to 10 of the missing competitors identified (depending on the mis-spellings)
  2. Hacks and hunter (9/18): 3 probable mis-identified people (Murat, Haëntjens & Dillon), 1 probable mis-spelling, 5 competitors not (yet) found;
    1 positive identification from surname (and another probable identification), 6 of the missing competitors identified
  3. Long Jump (5/10): 1 probable mis-identified person (Murat), 4 competitors not (yet) found
  4. Four-in-hand, mail coach (31): 1 questionable identification (Chanu)
  5. High jump (3/6): 1 probable mis-identified person (Haëntjens), 1 probable mis-spelling, 1 competitor not (yet) found;
    8 of the missing competitors identified (along with some horses, heights cleared and jump off details)

Many of the details can be found in my sandbox. It should be noted that Mallon's 2015 book (is there a more recent edition?) contains less detailed information than other sources (e.g. first names), so has less discrepancies, but there are still a fair few significant ones. I have expanded a couple of biographies, and intend to continue, but the percentage of competitors that have discrepancies in the sources is concerning. Thoughts please? wjematherplease leave a message... 13:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Prince Louis Napoléon Murat

Second, a more specific question: Prince Louis Napoléon Murat is recognised as a gold medallist as the winner of the hacks and hunter event, but was he? My research leads me to believe that it was likely his nephew Louis Napoléon Achille Charles Murat that competed in Paris. I was lead to this conclusion by the following (and several other corroborating sources):

  1. This L'Acclimatation report on the Concours Hippique International states that Murat was a lieutenant in the 14th régiment de hussards; the Almanach de Gotha confirms this rank and regiment for the nephew in 1900. It also seems unlikely that, had he remained in the armed services, the elder would still only have been a lieutenant 30+ years after starting his military career.
  2. The elder Murat was in the Navy and his mini-obit in the Washington Post makes no mention of the army, cavalry, horses or the Russo-Japanese War, and his official death record (p. 9, No. 1411) only mentions that he was a former naval officer. Conversely, many sources about the nephew refer to his escapades in French and Russian cavalry regiments, the latter during the Russo-Japanese War and WWI.
  3. Contemporary sources also seem to conflate uncle and nephew, e.g. stories of service in the Russian Army during the Russo-Japanese war appeared in the initial wire reports of the uncle's death, which appear to belong to the nephew ([14][15]).

Unfortunately the only picture I've found from the time is the one we have in the article, taken from La Vie au Grand Air, but even with the much clearer image on Gallica it is impossible to tell if the rider is a 28 year old or a 48 year old! Thoughts please. Thanks. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

First, let me say thank you for all the hard work you've put into researching and expanding this particular sub-set of Olympians. It's really great to see articles going from a stub to something much more substantial. In these cases, it's often that the Olympic element is a simple footnote in their life, as they were often notable for something else!
For Olympedia (which I'm always going to champion), it's only "problem", and I use that word sparingly, is like any website trying to be a comprenhsive encyclopedia (does that sound familar?!) is the amount of resources they have access too. That includes both physical sources and staff resources. From my own experience of nearly 15 years of using Olympedia and its predecessor is that information on people and events prior to World War I can be incomplete, or in some cases, incorrect. Obviously it's easier to find online sources about X person from the recent Winter Olympics, than it is to find out about Y person from more than 120 years ago.
Like any online resource, it can't be 100% correct 100% of the time. It's as reliable as it can be, as of this second you are reading my reply right now. It's a live site, and information is updated on a constant basis. I've lost count of the times of seeing incomplete information such as J Smith (dates unknown) completed in X event has later become a full bio on their site, with full name, DOB/DOD, and other achievements.
They are also very good at stating when something has been updated when it was incorrect before. Again, if they had J Smith, but research has found out to be it was actually John Smythe, they'll state that. The same if two people have been confused as being one and the same, such as the example you mention above.
Finally, I'll ping Canadian Paul into this convo, to see he has anything else to add, and to pass on the info about the equestrians. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for that. For those interested, I've created an article on the nephew: Louis Napoléon Achille Charles Murat. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that someone submitted this to Olympedia and it has been received. It might be a bit before it gets looked at, since Beijing 2022 is being wrapped up. Canadian Paul 03:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

LGBT Olympians Pt II

Would anyone object to splitting out the List of LGBT sportspeople article to make a new List of LGBT Olympians (current redirect to a bullet list in a prose article about LGBT+ issues at the Olympics) article; this would both condense the Olympics section into one readable chunk, rather than have it split like it currently is across articles, tables, and lists, and be in line with sources that generally talk about LGBT athletes competing at the Olympics in a separate manner to LGBT sportspeople in showcase sports. I am about to create a draft based on the format and structure of List of LGBT members of the United States Congress. Kingsif (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia & Belarus Winter para-games

I'm assuming, the Russian & Belarussian mini Paralympics from March 18 to 21? won't be recognised, nor its results counted by the Paralympics. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to, but if it's not an IOC event then it's not going to be included directly in any IOC events. Primefac (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

John Emery (bobsleigh)

Hi everyone. I am asking on behalf of the family of John Emery (bobsleigh) - he recently died and they are hoping to help expand his Wikipedia article. They have reliable secondary sources to help tell his story. I live in his adopted hometown, Sonoma, where his widow lives. It would be a conflict of interest for me and I am not interested in helping to fully facilitate this (I'm focused on Commons right now, too). Is there anyone who I can put them in touch with? A lot of the editors originally involved are inactive or retired. Thank you. (p.s. (this post was crossposted to Talk:John_Emery_(bobsleigh)#John_Emery_(bobsleigh)) Missvain (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Kingsif - I am not going to help facilitate the sourcing. Can I put you in touch with them? Email is fine. They don't know how to use Wikipedia and I don't have capacity to facilitate. Please let me know. Thank you so much. Missvain (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
@Missvain: For the COI reasons and even the potential to end up in (accusations of) meatpuppet territory, I think it would really be best to have the communication on Wikipedia (yes, even just to link sources). They don't even need to make an account, leaving messages (be it here, my talkpage, the article talkpage) is easier than email! Since the family of an article subject can probably do little more than recommend sources, are you sure you can't effectively copy and paste those into a refideas box? Kingsif (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to encourage them to reach out on Wikipedia. Thank you! Missvain (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Olympics

Hello, all. I've begun a deletion sorting page for articles about the Olympics which are nominated at AfD. Hope you find it useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Short track or short-track speed skating?

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

... at the Winter Olympics

Could someone fix the infobox-template for this sport Short-track speed skating at the Winter Olympics ? See also if my edits here at Template:Infobox Olympic sport were good ? Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 22:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the template, what should be happening? The only thing I notice is that there was a page that needed moving, which I've done, and maybe an issue with upper/lowercases in a link. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
The template should show blue links for the short-track editions in the Winter Wlympics which were held in 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022 and including a demonstration-event at the 1988-edition. This requested move (Talk:Short-track speed skating#Requested move 15 February 2022) haven't been fully endorsed for all this editions though. They have only been done for the editions of 1988 (demonstration), 1992, 1994 and 1998, the rest of them are not moved yet. The years in the infobox olympic sport-template are showing wrong olympic years for short-track speed skating, they are showing summer olympic years. My thought is that it is because of the demonstration-event in 1988. Thanks for all help so far, @Primefac:. Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 13:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Finally got the Winter Olympic years at least in the infobox but the italics for 1988 are not shown allthough it was a demomnstration-event that year. are also missing a link to the record-list article (List of Olympic records in short track speed skating), which seems to should have been added at the bottom alongside the medalists listarticle. @Primefac:. Best regards Migrant (talk – contribs) 19:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I fixed the template so that 1988 appears in italics. Regarding the records, I think the name of the Olympic records article should be changed so that "short track" appears as "short-track" but I'm not sure. Nimrodbr (talk) 06:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Chatuphum Chinnawong

Can someone update the infobox of Chatuphum Chinnawong who now wins bronze due to the disqualification of the gold medalist. Thanks! MaskedSinger (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

This person has not been awarded a medal yet. Reallocation is a process and is not automatic. We’ll need to wait until medal reallocation is announced.Jeff in CA (talk) 11:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Sport at the Olympics templates

Hey, Sportsfan 1234 (talk · contribs) removed a chunk within a template (Handball page, Volleyball one to only show the main sites and no links to men/women tournaments/rosters/qualification saying this template is called "Football at the Summer Olympics" not Football at the Summer Olympics Men's tournament, squads etc. There is a discussion held here. But i thought a wider discussion should be held to determine what should be used as the other ones (basketball, Field hockey, Water polo, Football (where he was also reverted) have those links shown (in my view correctly). Kante4 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

1896 Olympics (and others) page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi all. There's not been a great deal of input so far on this, but if you would like to comment, please do so. Thanks Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Malaysia at the Olympics

I think I've brought this up in the past, but the IOC does not consider participation by Malaya in 1956 and 1960 as Malaysia, therefore, on our All-Time list we have 14 Summer appearances by Malaysia, but Malaya at the Olympics redirects to Malaysia, which is incorrect. We should create the Malaya article for their two appearances, and not link them in the Malaysia's current infobox, plus add Malaya to the template with all NOCs. Jmj713 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is partly doing due diligence, and partly because I'm about to head off and don't have the time to look it up, but could you provide some links indicating the IOC has split it the way you propose? Primefac (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the current IOC website is useless to find such data, but I recall using the old version and Malaya and Malaysia were separate. Additionally, here is another source, I believe this can be considered a reliable source as it's a work of Olympic historians. Jmj713 (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I do agree the site is rather hard to navigate, but that's why I wanted to check - https://olympics.com/ioc/malaysia seems to agree with our current article that their NOC was recognised in '54, which predates the use of the name "Malaysia" and would indicate that we have the correct information. Primefac (talk) 06:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The IOC recognized the Malaya Olympic Committee in 1953.[16] Looking at the olympedia.org website, it appears that in 64', three of the four NOCs that formed the Olympic Council of Malaysia were already members of the IOC, so no additional membership process was carried out and the new body continued the membership of those NOCs.[17] Unfortunately, I can not find documents from the sessions that will verify this. Nimrodbr (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Another reason it can't be the same entity is the participation in 1956, where we have both Malaya and North Borneo as separate teams, and they're then participating together as Malaysia. It's somewhat similar to Germany and how we have West and East Germany, and we do not continue that into current Germany. Jmj713 (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Artistic swimming at the 2014 Asian Games#Requested move 30 May 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Artistic swimming at the 2014 Asian Games#Requested move 30 May 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. I know that Asian Games don't fall under this WikiProject's scope, but whether or not "Synchronised swimming" should be renamed to "Artistic swimming" for past events (prior to the name change), is probably of interest to this WikiProject too. Thank you! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Czech Gymnasts from 1920

I was able to find some coverage of the following gymnasts that indicate they might be notable, but no WP:SIGCOV. I've tagged them with notability for now; other may want to take a look.

  1. Josef Malý
  2. Robert Pražák
  3. Svatopluk Svoboda

BilledMammal (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Host city

As argument whether the host city parameter in Olympic Games infobox should include state/province, i'm invite you to discuss whether it will be necessary to include it on Talk:2028 Summer Olympics#Host city, as it is also involved MOS:OVERLINK. Thank you. --Aleenf1 08:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

World Cup race podiums in Infobox of the alpine skiers

Discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

GAR notices

Cambodia women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Madagascar women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.

Mauritius women's national football team has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

2022 Winter Olympics

Hi there, I just noticed that the 2022 Winter Olympics are still marked as a future event (italics) in the navigation at the top here: Category:2022 Winter Olympics. Would it be possible for someone with permissions to change that in this template: {{Winter Olympics by year category navigation/core}} ? I'm not a template expert so there may be other places as well. Thanks, Simeon (talk) 10:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: maybe? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Can't say if that's the only place with that issue (I know the infoboxes are okay) so just drop me a note on my talk if you ever see something like that in the future. Primefac (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it! I'll let you know if there's anything similar in the future. Simeon (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

RFC: What to put in the 'host city' section of the infobox

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is no consensus about whether to require a specific form. In general, those in favour of A (city only) do so because the Games are awarded to a specific city, while those in favour of B (city and country) are concerned that less-known cities would benefit from having the country as a better indication of where in the world that city is located. While consistency is of course ideal across a series of pages, there is not enough agreement here to prevent a local consensus from having different infobox information than similar pages. However, I will note that there was a strong consensus against adding anything other than Host city and country (i.e. the state/province/department should not be included). Primefac (talk) 19:27, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Should we have the following, in the infoboxes of the Summer & Winter Games pages

  • A) - Host city
  • B) - Host city, country
  • C) - Host city, state/province/department.., country

GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • A or B - Above all, my major concern is that we have consistency on this matter, across all the said pages. I should acknowledge that the related Template says "host city" & nothing else. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A Instances of Olympic Games are almost always known just by the city name, I see no reason to add other information, and it would prevent any potential debates about what country name to use for host cities in nations that have since dissolved/changed name/whatever Kingsif (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A or maybe B, but most certainly not C. A would probably come out tops if you searched sources, as historically the Games have been known by their host city. Schwede66 02:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) A If the city is sufficiently obscure (unlikely), the country is surely given in the text; it's how they're known, we're not here to make naming innovations. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 08:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • B - London, Athens, and Beijing stand alone. But places like Sochi, Lake Placid, and Albertville are not particularly household names. There is no reason to exclude potentially useful information on the basis that the IOC or whomever typically refers to them by the city name, only. Further, we put the country name in the infobox at the Siege of Leningrad despite the fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists, we can do the same thing for the 1980 Olympics. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Add - I haven no real issue with omitting the country name in most cases (as expressed by Seraphimblade below), but my above vote is just considering the presumed preference for uniformity with the guideline. I will say that the infobox is not generated by the IOC, it is generated by WP. The 'host city' is a reference to the city where the Olympics were held, and we are not required to follow the IOC branding or tradition. And 'Paris, France' refers to a city as much as 'Paris' alone, and so I don't think adding a country somehow runs counter to the parameter name. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 21:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • D. If the city is well known worldwide as being in a particular country (Beijing, New York, London), use the city name only. If it is not (El Cid gave some examples above), use both city and country. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
    I would add that in specific regards to Los Angeles, that is a well known enough city that only the city name should be used. Pretty well anyone would know that Los Angeles is in the United States without needing to be hit over the head with it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:42, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A The more I think of it, the line says "Host city", and I think just naming the city now is more appropriate. If for some reason the bid is branded with the city and something else, perhaps we can include that too. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
  • A The IOC awards the Games to cities alone, not countries, and obviously never to states or provinces within countries. We always Wikilink the city name, so information on where it is will always be available to readers. It is not our job to second guess the IOC. We also face the problem that cities can change from being in one country to being in another. This is the case with the 1984 Winter Olympics. That article says they were held in "Sarajevo, Yugoslavia". The city name is Wikilinked; the country is not. Most people will know that Yugoslavia no longer exists. Fewer will know that Sarajevo is now in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I submit that the country name is far less important than the city name, and really isn't needed. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
You're making a problem where there isn't one. The infobox at Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand includes Sarajevo without any issues. And since when does the IOC dictate what WP does? ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
The Archduke is irrelevant here. It's the IOC that declares where the Games happen. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • B I would say A for the big cities but lean towards B just for the uniform look of it for the cities that are lesser known. Salt Lake 2002 does not have Utah in the infobox and it is far less known than a city like Los Angeles. The city is linked so if someone really needs that detail and are unaware, they can click the link - that is the whole point of the link. Chris1834 Talk 16:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
  • B As far as I know, all sports events include county in the infobox. Why should it be different in this case? Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Because Olympic Games are ONLY awarded to cities, never to countries. And we always Wikilink the city name. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you can't have a city without a country. Pelmeen10 (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm assuming you mean that all cities are within countries. Yes, true, but the IOC simply doesn't award Games to countries. It only names cities when it awards the Games, not countries. It's only the media that makes a fuss about the cities being associated with countries, particularly the media in countries that win a lot of medals. I hope you know that there is also no official medal count associated with the Games. The Games are for competition between athletes, and are NOT a competition between countries. HiLo48 (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I've begun this RFC, due to the continuing dispute over the infobox content, mainly at the 2028 Summer Olympics page. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

Not sure 'who', but someone had re-included some provinces & states in the infoboxes. I've since deleted them, per the RFC consensus to 'exclude' them. GoodDay (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Paralympics

I've removed the provinces, states & other dependencies from the 'infoboxes' of the Summer & Winter Paralympic pages. In the spirit of the closed RFC on this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Request of expansion of the notability of Olympic athletes in the top 16

If anyone cared about this discussion. --Kasper2006 (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Sarajevo Olympics infobox

Not to restart all this, but I do find it incongruous that the 1984 Winter Olympics article mentions Yugoslavia in the infobox. As we know, the Games are awarded to a city, in this case Sarajevo. In 1984, Sarajevo was in Yugoslavia. But Yugoslavia doesn't exist and did not, technically, host the Games, so it really makes no sense to have it in there. Of course, Sarajevo isn't an unknown city, so it shouldn't need any country mentioned - and I also think adding wouldn't be helpful (as it didn't host the Games either). Starting this discussion here since the article talkpage doesn't get traffic and I think users at this project are generally familiar with prior related discussions. Kingsif (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Would it be better to write Sarajevo, Yugoslavia<br>(now Bosnia and Herzegovina) ? Pelmeen10 (talk) 02:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Not at all. Sarajevo is all it needs. People who don't know what that is or where it is can find out by clicking on the link. A lengthy "former country / current country" is unnecessary fluff. Schwede66 03:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
That would be inconsistent with all other olympics infoboxes, e.g. look at 1980 Winter Olympics, 1988 Winter Olympics, etc. All include the name of the country, not just the host city. The change to city only would have to be implemented throughout the olympic articles for consistency. I see no reason why we shouldn't leave it as Sarajevo, Yugoslavia, as that's what it was at the time. The infobox states the stats at the time that the Games were held in that place, no need to introduce any confusing historical detail re. the breakup of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
In the same manner, the 1980 Summer Olympics were held in the Soviet Union which also does not exist anymore. --Tone 09:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Sarajevo was the host city and it was in Yugoslavia at the time, so "Sarajevo, Yugoslavia" works just fine – if needed, the inline note from the prose (which states "Located in what is now Bosnia and Herzegovina") could easily be reused here for additional clarity. The infobox label is "Host City", which makes it clear enough that it was the city, not the country, hosting the games so I see little merit in "the country didn't host the Games" arguments. The country is there as a useful qualifier, nothing more – and it is useful. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
See, I don't think "Sarajevo, Yugoslavia" works just fine.
If you're going to argue that including the country of the host city is useful, I can only assume that its usefulness is for helping readers mentally locate the city, at which point the argument would be to name the country it is currently in (which more readers will be familiar with?).
Insisting on using the historic country name is, at some level, trying to say (intentionally or not) that the Games was awarded to/hosted by that country, because if you agree that the country is truly insignificant in terms of physical location of hosting, there is no reason to continue using historic names.
Indeed, where the wider country's political context is relevant (Russia, Nazi Germany, as some examples) to the hosting of the Games and issues therein, it needs a whole lot of body text to discuss that, not a name in an infobox. Kingsif (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Kingsif here. One of the special and unique things about the Olympic Games is that they are explicitly NOT awarded to countries, only to cities. The Sarajevo Games were NOT awarded to Yugoslavia , nor were they awarded to Bosnia and Herzegovina. We always Wikilink the city names. Those wanting to know more about the city can follow the link. Treating the Olympic games like any other sporting event in this regard is simply wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and (to repeat) the infobox label states just that – "Host city". Claiming that including the (era appropriate) country implies anything else is a strawman argument. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't see it this way. I think it is vital to present the country's name in the infobox. Although the games are awarded to a city and not a country, the host country is mentioned quite a bit throughout the games. First, with the official parts of the protocol of the ceremonies: raising the country's flag and playing the national anthem, not the host city's flag. The head of the host country opens the games, not the city's mayor. Second, the artistic parts of the ceremonies present the host country's history, culture, and geography. Third, the host country uses the hosting to raise its profile. Accordingly, the name of the country where the games were held at that time should be presented and not the current affiliation of the host city. Nimrodbr (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
As I already noted, all that context requires body text. So a note in the text about it saying "Sarajevo was in Yugoslavia, which has since been dissolved" or something is actually more useful than putting that bit of information in the infobox. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

LGBT+ Olympians list

Hello all! I haven't been able to put much time into WP lately, but what I have has been put into spending a few months splitting out and "completing" (as much as possible) the List of LGBT Olympians. I hope to now also add substantial info to, and clean-up, the LGBT issues at the Olympic and Paralympic Games article that I split the list from, which I've started - prose lists aren't really articles, but I'm hoping we'll end up with a quality list and article out of what it was.
So I'm here to ask a favour. Some introductory prose at the List of LGBT Olympians, and the whole template at Template:LGBT Olympians overview, are based on the information; since it's all sourced, basing the text on the lists should be fine under WP:CALC. That aspect of policy does say that simple addition and converting units (which is all that is being used) should be easily permissible, with more complex calculations being allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct. Given the larger numbers (up to hundreds) and overlapping datasets involved, though, I would like to request that if anyone has some time, if they could check my sums are correct!
Also, there could be more discussion on including number (and %age) of medalists - previous discussions and what was in the lead of the previous article have me include them (as well as to use a reduced figure to calculate %age since two medals are from a demonstration event), but if anyone is interested, I'd encourage this to be discussed anew. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Figure skating events at the Olympics

Hello! Is it possible to add articles about Figure skating events at the Olympic Games. For example from 1964 to 1998?. For instance both single skating, pair skating and ice dancing events. It may need a person of competance to add them. Someone can draft a article about for example Figure skating at the 1976 Winter Olympics – Men's singles for example and or Figure skating at the 1992 Winter Olympics – Pair skating for instance. Yours sincerely, Sondre 88.88.4.178 (talk) 13:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This is in my plans. Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

User:Sportsfan 1234

I've noticed that Sportsfan 1234 takes control of the articles related to Canada at the Summer Olympics. We are trying to correct some errors, and he accuses us of grammar and other issues. The power to revert other users' edits without further reasoning is indeed unprofessional and stressful. How can we address this problem to give others the opportunity to edit freely without engaging in an edit war? Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps using the talk page would be more helpful rather than making controversial edits without discussion. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 18:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Magnatyrannus: At this moment, I am fixing and cleaning some errors and other messes edited by users at every NOC article of the 2020 Summer Olympics. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
If there's a risk of an edit war, start the discussion first, if no engagement bring the issue here. If no consensus can be formed and/or disruption starts occurring, WP:ANI is the place to go. Primefac (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

NOCs with results references

I've noticed that some NOCs at the 2020 Summer Olympics contain references that display the results of each athlete participating in a sporting event. If you don't want these references to be removed, why should these not apply to the rest of NOCs? Many users revert my edits asking me a coercive and concrete proof. I've observed several discrepancies with the other NOCs not containing the result references. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 05:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I completely do not understand your behavior. There is no rule that "nation at the X Olympics" articles must be 100% identical. If there are articles whose editors worked and bothered and added appropriate references to the results - they should be kept. If you are interested in adding these references to the rest of the articles - you are most welcome. However, there is no reason to delete references to information since they do not appear in other articles. Nimrodbr (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Raymarcbadz, could you give some diffs and/or examples of what you mean? I'm not quite sure I understand your concern, but if it's as Nimrodbr states and you're trying to remove references simply because they're not used in other articles, well, that's not really how it should be. Primefac (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)
Singapore at the 2020 Summer Olympics vs Australia at the 2020 Summer Olympics Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I guess it largely depends on where the information is located. If the only place the results of an individual is their olympics.com page, then it would make sense to have every participant have a reference to their results page. If we can get a single reference for "who played on X team", that would cut down on the number of references needed for that information. I think it's a page-by-page sort of situation, and I would hesitate to make any blanket statements about how we should reference content across all Olympics pages (though we might be able to get some broad strokes). Primefac (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Why do you question about my behavior? I think you should take the responsibility to add the references since you propose the idea to have them in the table. I am most welcome with your suggestions, but let's make the format more consistent and transparent. Kindly also check the article. WP:OLYMOSNAT Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
I didn't add these references to the article. Still, I strongly object to deleting references in an article because they do not appear in other articles or other articles have no references. Also, this isn't the first time you've simply deleted references from articles. In addition, you are welcome to open a discussion regarding which references to add and where to put them in those articles if, in your personal opinion, there should be a new guideline at WP:OLYMOSNAT. Currently, there is none. Nimrodbr (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
If you want to make the use of refs consistent, which in this case is not strictly necessary where not functionally necessary, may I suggest adding references to articles lacking them, rather than unexplained removal of sources - routinely doing the latter will result in you getting banned again, and no long tenure will save you with continued disruptive editing and an apparent substandard understanding of English. Up to you, Ray. Kingsif (talk) 11:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Agree. When there are refs, don't delete them. If any article has not the same structure (references), fine. Either add the refs or not. Kante4 (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Haiti at the 1936 Summer Olympics

This is a single-sentence stub, which I genuinely cannot see being expanded unless someone can track down why the Haitian weightlifter showed up but didn't compete. Should this just be redirected to the parent article? Primefac (talk) 10:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll look into it. If I have my trivia correct, Haiti entering the 1936 Olympics is also the reason Liechtenstein changed their flag in 1937, so that can be added, too. Might even get long enough to put that on DYK Kingsif (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
The flag thing is true, yes, just don't know if that's worth including on each individual article or on the main '36 Olympics page. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Primefac: Got some info. It actually seems like the weightlifter (René A. Ambroise), despite pulling out due to injury, was the reason for Liechtenstein changing their flag! Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I would think that it was Haiti showing up in general (not specifically Ambroise) that led to the flag change. If you can get a ref for Ambroise and why he dropped, that would help too. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I've expanded the article. The refs support most of the story; I read (on Reddit, no source) that Ambroise had been reluctant to change the Haitian flag at the Games, so Liechtenstein (with a small, but more-than-1, delegation) changed theirs, and liked it enough to make it permanent. One of the refs at least supports that adding the crown at the Games was the reason it is now on the flag, but obviously it isn't upside-down anymore! Kingsif (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Don't know if anyone will be interested, but this article has now been promoted to GA! Thank you to Primefac for bringing it to the WP talk :) Kingsif (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

That's great! Primefac (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Stanisław Prauss linked with wrong language wikis

Crossposting from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography I was combing through the 1997 deaths category and came across Stanisław Prauss. Given he's listed in the 1997 deaths category, I was confused to see the page detail a death year of 1967. This appears to be supported by the Olympedia source on his page. So I then went to the different wiki sites Prauss is linked to (Italian, Malagasy, Egyptian Arabic, Polish, Russian) and saw they not only had Prauss listed at 1997, but the date of birth and death are entirely different from one another. With the English Wiki/Olympedia, its 3 April 1902 – 23 April 1967 whereas on the other wikis its 28 November 1903 – 12 November 1997. Turns out the English wiki page about a painter is linked elsewhere to an aircraft engineer with the same name. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Olympedia misidentified his dates as being those of the aircraft engineer until earlier this year Topcardi (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

metres vs metre

I've noticed that Olypics articles are titled inconsistently with regards to races being 100 metre or 100 metres. For example, for athletics articles it seems that the plural is used universally (ie on List of Olympic medalists in athletics (men), or Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres), whereas for swimming events they use metre for each event's article (eg Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 200 metre freestyle), but they use metres (or yards) for all events on List of Olympic medalists in swimming (men) and List of Olympic medalists in swimming (women) except the mixed relay. Is there any particular reason for this difference between athletics and swimming? And if there is then surely it should be consistent? A7V2 (talk) 03:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm now of the opinion that in all cases the units should be plural. I notice in the sources used in articles, eg Swimming at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle, either just m is used, or the plural is used. Further the MOS seems to suggest that the plural forms should be used. However as this would involve moving many articles I think wider input is required. I will put notices on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Swimming as well. A7V2 (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
They should definitely be consistent. I prefer the singular form myself. Where in MOSNUM does it suggest otherwise? Dondervogel 2 (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
That's my question as well. EEng 09:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The MOS is far from explicit, and this is only my interpretation but in the table in the section MOS:UNITNAMES, it gives examples of plurals being used, and the wording to me suggests it should be pluralised: "SI unit names are pluralized..." but I may be reading too much into this. That said, not just athletics but also seemingly every other sport uses plural units (eg Canoeing at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Men's K-2 1000 metres), as do articles like 100 metres freestyle. A7V2 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd say the first example is correct, as it refers to 1000 m as a noun (Bob won the race over a distance of 1000 metres). In the second example, 100 m is an adjective because it describes the freestyle event. In my interpretation, it should then be singular (Alice won the 100-metre freestyle). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Dondervogel 2's last comment. It's no s for the adjective and add the s for the noun. IMO, the examples given are correct. To me it feels natural to say it like that, probably because it's consistent with how they say it on TV broadcasts.
Here's an example of ESPN using the adjective with no s in the first paragraph.[18]
Same website using no s for a hurdling event adjective, third paragraph. It's not just a swimming thing.[19]
ESPN adding the s for a noun in the title.[20]
It's just grammar now that I think about it. "It was a 50-kilometre drive." and "We drove 50 kilometres." are both correct. "It was a 50-kilometres drive." is incorrect. However, this does beg the question, why aren't hyphens used in those compound adjectives in Olympic events? DB1729talk 05:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Because hyphenation is a lost art. EEng 22:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
aw, jeez, y'all. MARRY ME! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Olympic Games

I have nominated Olympic Games for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 05:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_19&oldid=1136151095"