Talk:Independent Olympic Participant

Individual Olympic Athletes?

Isn't Individual Olympic Athletes (which confusingly redirects to IOA) the term now used? The East Timor athletes in 2000 are listed as Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Timrollpickering 19:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like IOP and IOA are both used by the IOC. For some unknown reason, there is a distinction between the terms... Andrwsc 20:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger and Renaming proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was not to merge. Based on the near unanimous opposition after two days and the creation of the new article proposed, speedy close seems appropriate. There is no prejudice against alternative merger proposals, which have not been discussed. CT Cooper · talk 22:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC))

---

{{Merge|Independent Olympic Participant|Unified Team at the 1992 Winter Olympics|Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics|Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics|Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics|Unified Team at the 1992 Summer Olympics}}

I have proposed that the following articles be merged and re-named to form one single unified articles where all the times there have been competitors competing under the Olympic Flag has occurred. The main benefits of this would be that it would allow for easy explanation of the three different scenarios where this has occurred as a "unified team" as "individual participants" and as "individual athletes". This would also eliminate naming issues surrounding what to call 2012 athletes competing under the Olympic Flag. The article would also give the historical background for each scenario and be a truly informative article with unified information on this still rather unique occurrence. Sport and politics (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose: I do not support the merge as that would mostly a list of results for unconnected athletes, dominated by the 533 competing in 1992. I do, however, support the creation of an article about the reasons why, and the times when, athletes have competed under the Olympic flag. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Is that a support in part oppose in part? 17:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sport and politics (talk • contribs)

Possibly. I am opposed to the merge part as I think the existing articles have an important function as a results database. I support the creation of a prose article on the subject of a athletes competing under the Olympic flag. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I would also support the idea of having an article named Independent Olympic Participant (or Athlete, if you like), which would be more than just a disambiguation page but explain the general idea behind this term and briefly summarize the situations in which its use occured. However, there should be seperate articles for each edition of the Olympics in which IOPs or IOAs participated, mentioning the athletes, their achievements and the specific circumstances of their participation. Since the latter articles already exist, all we had to do would be to write a general article on IOPs and, if possible, improve the year-specific articles. --Phileasson (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia really as "results database"? Is that really the point of Wikipedia and is having an article which is nothing more than a results dump really notable? Also why can an article which integrates the notable results into one place a bad thing? Sport and politics (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly, but see WP:NOLYMPICS: The Olympic Games are considered exceptionally notable. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: None of the other NOCs have to combine their pages and they shouldn't, not only would we run into size issues, but things would become unneccesarily complicated. You can create a main page like "XXX at the Olympics" and explain the reasons but combining results is not something we should do. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see it, we are more or less of the same opinion with just a very minor difference. We both want to have a comprehensive article to explain the idea behind IOP/IOA and the different situations that lead to its use. And of course should such an article mention especially notable results (medals etc.) of the competitors. But I still would stick to my opinion that in addition to that, year-specific articles would be significant and notable enough. We already have them, for very good reasons, for all "Nations at the...Olympics". When properly written and/or improved later on, they can be much more than just a results dump. They deal with the composition of the teams, specific circumstances regarding the nomination procedure or the participation itself etc. and of course mention the athletes and their achievements in the Games. In any case they are notable per WP:NOLYMPICS. IMHO there should not be any difference for an article for "IOP/IOA at the...Olympics". --Phileasson (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Phileasson. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems pretty simple the there is clear consensus to create an article for competing under the Olympic flag , and existing wiki consensus is that the Olympics are notable above and beyond. Just the results articles need improving to be more than results dumps. Sport and politics (talk) 19:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Recopied from main page: We have a United States at the Olympic Games article and a United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics article. I don't see why this should be any different. I don't see the need for both an Independent Olympic Participants at the Olympic Games article and an Individual Olympic Athletes at the Olympic Games article, but perhaps redirect one to the other, or redirect them both to Competing under the Olympic Flag. Include mentions of the 1992 situations with Yugoslavia and the Unified Team, the 2000 situation with East Timor, and the 2012 situation. Make one section for each and explain the reasons. Have an introduction saying nations have competed under the Olympic flag for various reasons, including lack of NOC and sanctions. Expand on that, obviously. Smartyllama (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

A "Competing under the Olympic flag" article could also mention the NOCs choosing to do so (e.g. 1980 Summer Olympics), and Kuwait's recent situation at Youth Olympics and Asian Games. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Support I agree with the nominator. Wesley Mouse 21:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you keep the individual articles for individual Games too? Because I think that's the main issue here. There sees to be consensus for the new article, the only question is whether to keep the existing ones too. Smartyllama (talk) 00:41, 23 July 20

Oppose Userboxer 07:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Any valid reason or are you voting Userboker? Sport and politics (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose All Olympics need to have own articles about individual participants --Bearas (talk) 09:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Not only would this be highly confusing, it would be very disruptive, given that many templates and results boxes rely on individual articles. The fact that East Timor took part in 2000 is different from why the Unified Team took part in 1992; it would be highly disruptive to cram all these together in one page doktorb _words^deeds 10:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose An article could be made for Independent Athletes at the Summer Olympics which discusses the reasons why that Olympic code exists and the times it has happened in the past. This would fit in with how Olympic articles are made for countries in general (see: Honduras at the Summer Olympics etc.) I see no reason to combine all the results together into one article. The same way we don't combine Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics. 130.88.141.34 (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: IOP (1992 and 2012) and IOA (2000) is de facto same "olympic nation". Many countries change codes and name at Olympics. I think it should merge this articles. Unified Team and Mixed team is very specific situation. At the 1992 Summer Olympics Unified Team and IOP presented as diferent "nations".--Aca Srbin (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2012 (CEST)

Commment: Other than the nominator and perhaps Wesley Mouse (who has yet to clarify his position), nobody is against keeping the current articles. The issue is whether we want a new one as well. Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Smartyllama, If by clarifying my position you mean !vote, I did that above at 22:39 yesterday (22 June). Wesley Mouse 21:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain *why* you agree? You surely see that there is a vast difference between East Timorese athletes and, say, the CIS? doktorb _words^deeds 22:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

When I said I support and agree with the nominator, I thought that would be self-explanatory!? I supported the decision, and agreed with the views of the nominator. That in itself gives enough explanation, is it mandatory to explain in full detail a reason for supporting/opposing something if I have expressed that I agree with the nominator? Wesley Mouse 22:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And your reply comes across as, to be blunt, snide. You haven't justified your decision or answered my question. You might get away with being a brunt force of "know it all" with other editors, but it won't work with me. doktorb _words^deeds 22:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I never posted bluntly or in a snide manner. You asked me a question, and I explained to you that I had already stated I had made a "support" !vote and that I agreed with the nominator. If you misinterpreted it as being blunt, then I'm sorry. But it wasn't written with malicious intent. But if anything has come across as blunt it is accusing me of getting away with being brunt with others and having a "know it all" attitude. That if I am not mistake is uncivil/attacking. I can see why you would have posted such remarks as you have misconstrued my previous comment. At this moment in time I can see the valid points in what the nominator has made. And have yet to fully read the other editor's statement which may or may not sway me in a different direction. In case you wasn;t aware, I am a volunteer at the games, so I can only check up and respond to things on here when I get the time to do so. Wesley Mouse 23:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't what I meant by "clarify", so relax. Both of you. What I meant is, do you support a total merge, or do you support retaining the current articles and creating a new page Competing Under the Olympic Flag? Smartyllama (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Can this please be toned down here and moved to user talk pages. This is in danger of distracting from the substantive discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 23:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the ship has sailed to merge the articles, the main article on "Competing under the Olympic Flag" will need to link out the result dump articles with brief introductory paragraphs on each. Sport and politics (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought these processes were suppose to last longer than 1 day, unless there's a snowball consensus? Wesley Mouse 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like there is snowball consensus. I haven't seen one person opposed to the new article. And other than perhaps you (you still haven't clarified), I don't see anyone saying get rid of the existing articles, including the original nominator. Smartyllama (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, we don't need to have a formal discussion to create the new article. Someone can just create it whenever they want to, really. The only issue is what to do with the existing articles. The nominator has said keep them, everyone else has said keep them, I'm just unsure what you think. If you think we should keep them, I think that counts as snowball at this point. If you don't, please explain why we should get rid of the existing articles in addition to creating the new one. Smartyllama (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ohhh I see what you mean now. Please forgive me for my major brain-fart moment there, working long hours as a volunteer at the games is starting to take its toll, and I've only done 2 shifts to date, got more to undertake between now and 9 September. I thought we were !voting on the merger only, I didn't know this was a double !vote on merger and/or new article creation. Seeing the merger banner at the top lead me to that conclusion. Yes I agree, that a new article for Independent Olympians at the Olympics would be beneficial, as A) it allows use to house together IOAs and IOPs in the same way we have Greece in the Olympic Games, yet also allow us to create individual articles such as IOAs 2012 or IOPs 1992 separate in the same way we have Greece at the 1992 Summer Olympics - if you know where I am coming from there. Again, sorry for the confusion. Wesley Mouse 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. It appears a lot of people originally had that confusion. But at this point, I think it's been resolved. Proposal to speedy close by both creating the new article and keeping the existing articles. There seems to be snowball consensus for that at this point. Anyone object? Smartyllama (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I personally think Nations Competing Under the Olympic Flag is a better title, that's something that can be worked out later. Also, the creation of a new article does not require formal consensus, only a full merge does, so that shouldn't prevent closing this. Smartyllama (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - sounds good to me. But don't ask me how its done, my brain is frazzled enough as it is. Someone asked me after I did my first shift would I volunteer for Glasgow 2014 I replied yes. Now I might change my mind and forget volunteering again lol. On a serious note though, this page is a disambig right? So only holds a 1 liner on what a IOP is. We may not need to create a new page, but just fix this one so that it is no loner a disambig. Get the page renamed to Independent Olympians at the Summer Olympic Games (or what ever generic title is used). Then expand this page into a proper article. It wouldn't matter that the current links to IOA and IOP pages disappear as they would be covered in the table of when an IO participated during an Olympics. Wesley Mouse 23:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I'm guessing that would require a move after we formally close this out. That's fine. I personally like the title Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games better anyway, since nations have competed under the Olympic Flag for other irrelevant reasons, such as boycotts. Smartyllama (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, whether they have competed as IOA or IOP, they have both got one thing in common - they have been Independent Olympians, so such a title as Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games would work much more perfectly. We'd then have a table of when an IO competed at the games whether it was under the code IOA or IOP, and those respective games would link to the relevant articles such as Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics, or Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Wesley Mouse 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games now created. Please expand, etc. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I thought this very page was going to be WP:RM'd to that page title, as there is no need to have a disambig page now that it has been decided to keep all articles. Wesley Mouse 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This page may eventually get redirected there, but there really is no need to go through a move request. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh ok. From looking at the last 5 comments, it appears to have been established that this disambig page is technically redundant purely for the fact the content on this page just holds a 1-liner saying what an IOP means, and then links to articles for IOP 1992, IOA 2000, and IOA 2012. Based on what was suggested above, it would have made more sense to have re-written this page into a proper article rather than a disambig, and then request an official move to the new page title (which has now been created anyhow). Doing the redirect option sounds like we're making more work for ourselves than would be needed. Wesley Mouse 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone mind if we close this out and remove the merge tags from the articles since now we're talking about redirects from disambigs? Smartyllama (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I gather, its admin closure that is required. Wesley Mouse 17:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Then can you summon an admin like last time? This is smartyllama posting on my iPhone. I don't feel like signing in since I seldom use wiki on here. 174.252.34.255 (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL at summoning an admin like last time, that brought a smile to my face. Its a bit like rubbing a lamp for a genie to pop out. I'll see what I can do. Wesley Mouse 22:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Request made Wesley Mouse 22:10, 24 July 2012 (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.