This article is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OlympicsWikipedia:WikiProject OlympicsTemplate:WikiProject OlympicsOlympics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
I wonder which Wikipedia guideline dictates that only the country with the most gold & overall medals is mentioned in the lead. I'd like to see more consistency (some articles mention not only 2nd and 3rd, but also host nation performances) in implementing this guideline if it indeed exists. Thank you. Pizzigs (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no guideline about the best way to write an article and what to not include in this situation. I've been consistent in the featured lists I'm working on and I don't believe this was mentioned in the other two featured list nominations that another person has nominated. I think myself and the other individuals working on these lists have been pretty consistent.
The argument to be made, or that should be, is that these are things that belong in the lead and that they improve the article. I don't think the mention of second or third place really belongs in the lead or improves it, its not a key part of the summary of the events. It stretches the lead out unnecessarily just to say that XYZ also finished second, as if that's incredibly relevant to the summary of the article. I'd argue it unnecessarily stretches out the lead further than it needs to and it's undue in the lead from my POV. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only propose introducing a brief summary noting the achievements of the next two most successful nations. I don't see why it should be controversial given that the entire lead is of arbitrary notability. Furthermore, I'd argue that mentioning Bahrain's reallocated gold from 2012 is what clutters the lead because this information has nothing to do with the 2016 Olympics. Pizzigs (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely disagree that it clutters the lead, as it's relevant in context. The news, at the time, was that Bahrain's first medal was the one mentioned in this article. However, due to reallocation, their earliest Olympic medal is technically the one from 2012. It's relevant given that this was the first won at the time and this is typically what's included in these articles.
@Pizzigs: You should not be edit warring and then arguing that others are doing so. It doesn't magically make you right by being the first to yell "edit war" and accuse someone of ownership. I'm absolutely open to changes to the article. I do not own it. Your changes were disputed, they should be discussed, it's really that simple. I encourage you to revert yourself and to continue to actually have a discussion and not to edit war because you like your proposed changes. The changes that I've made are based on a number of other medal lists which have been promoted to featured status. This is the template that I've been following, as myself and another user have been working to promote more of the lists to featured list status. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
