Jump to content

Template talk:Olympic Games/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Initial comments

To whoever made this, are 1916, 1940, and 1944 Olympic years or War years (and I want the proper answer.) 66.245.95.169 18:18, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This question has been on for 3 days and it still hasn't been answered. 66.32.64.27 22:02, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

1906 Olympics were official until they were deaccreditted later by the IOC. 1908, 1920 did have Winter Olympic Events in the same vein as the 1924 Winter Olympics. The 1924 Winter Olympics were not Winter Olympics until the IOC retroactively decided to make it so. So, shouldn't they be there?

132.205.45.148 04:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Those sorts of details would be well suited to the articles themselves. such as Winter Olympics and 1906 Summer Olympics, however the template is designed for simplicity, and such extra information makes the template less readible/less usable. -- Chuq 04:37, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully, this version is clear.

132.205.45.148 04:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's more clear.. but a bit more bulky.. I'll leave it for a while and see what others think -- Chuq 05:23, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've trimmed the footnotes down a bit. If somebody wants to know the exact details behind each of the disputed or cancelled games, then that information should be in the articles, but the infobox itself is just a navigation aid, and shouldn't stand out on the page. sjorford →•← 11:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring the template/Usage of the rings

I don't think this template should have the Olympic rings on it for these reasons:

  1. Because it violates the fair use agreement with the IOC; and
  2. Because it, frankly, makes the template unappealing.

I suggest restructuring it, maybe deleting the image or atleast making it smaller, and adding a link to the medal counts, as they are important. Also, at the bottom, maybe a navigation thing showing previous, present, and future games. I'll try to come up with my idea and maybe we'll impliment it if enough people think it'd look good. --J@red [T]/[+] 14:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my design. Its not much different, but it adds key elements to the template that are much needed. I created a color and a non-color version of each. I'm not partial to either one over the other:

{{User:JP06035/Olympic_Games}}

Olympic Games

Olympic sports
Olympic medalists
Participating NOCs
Olympic symbols
Medal counts

Summer Olympic Games

1896, 1900, 1904, 19061, 1908, 1912, (1916)2, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940)2, (1944)2, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012

Winter Olympic Games

1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940)2, (1944)2, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014

Torino 2006 — Beijing 2008 — Vancouver 2010 — London 2012



{{User:JP06035/Olympic_Games_(no_color)}}

Olympic Games

Olympic sports
Olympic medalists
Participating NOCs
Olympic symbols
Medal counts

Summer Olympic Games

1896, 1900, 1904, 19061, 1908, 1912, (1916)2, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940)2, (1944)2, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012

Winter Olympic Games

1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, (1940)2, (1944)2, 1948, 1952, 1956, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014

Torino 2006 — Beijing 2008 — Vancouver 2010 — London 2012


The colored one is kind of neat because is shows yellow for summer, blue for winter, etc. The other is more practical, though, because it is not as much of an eyesore on the page. Feel free to make suggestions or edit the templates above! --J@red [T]/[+] 16:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Table width

Somebody just changed the table width from 75% to 76%. What different does this make? Brian Jason Drake 08:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

When I did that, it actually made the template so that it didn't go onto additional rows. It didn't dawn on me until after that it's probably only my computer that'll show it like that because other computers show different resolutions, have different browsers, whatever. So really, it probably makes little to no difference on anyone else's computer. → J@red  14:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Confusing layout

The way this template is set up, it looks like it's categorizing Athens '04 and Torino '06 as "Future" games... --zenohockey 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Olympic rings layout

I am personally against the current arrangement and colour of "Sports • Medal counts • NOCs • Medalists • Symbols". Among the reasons:

  1. Layout should be dictated by usability and should be consistent throughout WP. In any case it should not driven by the subject matter.
  2. This layout will oppose resistance to adding a sixth category, or maybe it already includes an arbitrary fifth link.
  3. It looks unprofessional and it creates a precedent. Should we arrange the template about Christianity in a cross? And the Nazi template in a swastika?

Hopefully acceptable username 11:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't believe there is anything wrong with it. Many templates just have random links strewn across the template because there is no logical way to sequence them. In this way, we have a neat way to lay out the only links we'll ever have, and it is appropriate to the subject matter. Most other pages with years have extra links, and only coincidentally does ours make a unique pattern out of the links. As well, our de facto colors for the Olympics have been blue and a lighter blue (see the wikiproject), which we have carried out to our template. Would this mean that everyone should have the same color box with the same specifications? Certainly not. In short, if you would like to arrange the Christianity box in the shape of a cross, do so; the fact is, though, that the Olympics is totally different than a religion, and an interesting, space-conservative group of links to important pages here in the shape of an image we cannot use because of copyright restrictions allows us to make our template more appropriate to the subject matter.
Therefore, I move to keep it present. └Jared┘┌t┐  19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Concerning the reasons behind my recent edit [1]: What is the point of having superscript numbers if nobody can see the footnotes when the template is transclused onto articles? Do you really think that the average user or newbie will actually go to the actual template page to see the footnotes that are bracketed with NOINCLUDE tags? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but the reason I put the footers on this pages is because it truely makes the template look ugly. Not to mention, the point of the template is not to be a mass of information, but to cram the most links into the smallest space. I am going to revert your edits, but feel free to put that information back into the template if you can find a decent spot for it. I just think that it is not necessary or vital information, and if someone needed to know that badly, I'm sure andone with common sense would either click on the superscript number or on the page itself to read more. Again, feel free to try to reincorperate it if you really think you should and could do so in a good manner. Thanks. → J@red talk+ ubx  20:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are the footnotes at the top on the template page? Brian Jason Drake 06:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I originally had them at the bottom, but when I went to test out the link, both the [1] and the [2] linked to the same spot on the page because of the fact that the page is so short. I moved them to the top thinking that it would make it actually go to the right links, but it didn't work, because the page is still too short. Feel free to move them to the bottom, then, if you think it would be better. → J@red talk+ ubx  20:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it is more useful to include footnotes within the actual template like for example on Template:Countries of Europe, it is faster to read then in the tamplate than go to the tamplate page, read it and then go back to the article. Cpt.Miller (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Layout

Somehow, I think it would make sense if the "above" and "below" sections of the template were merged into one. I made Template:Olympic Games/above hoping that I could just easily transclude it into the "above =" section of the template, but apparently that isn't allowed. I think that layout is good, though, and doesn't waste space. I'm just not sure how to do it. Jared (t)  17:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth Olympics

User:Andrwsc has taken it upon himself to repeatedly [2][3][4] remove the 2010 Youth Olympic Games from this template after their inclusion by three different editors, citing the YOG as "not "full" Games" as a reason. This is, to me, a POV by a single wikipedian, and I do not find it appriopriate for any wikipedian to see himself in a position to actually value-judge an event this way without concensus.--Huaiwei (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The bottom row of this navbox has been twiddled with endlessly in the ~2 years it has been on my watchlist. Do we just show the most recent two Games and next two Games, or more? Or less? Do we add the Youth Games or not? etc. etc. It's annoying to see so many changes, and that's why I've been trying to keep some consistency. Since it is a wholly redundant subset of the main list of links, perhaps it is now time to put it out of its misery and drop it from the navbox. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
It is in wikipedia's interests that its contents are being "twiddled" with all the time, so I find it odd that this should become reason to remove content altogether. Get the community to agree on what goes in and what goes out, and end the disputes from there. I do not consider them redundant, since there will invariably be much higher international attention paid to recent and upcoming editions of these games.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Well yeah, that was the original concept – highlight the most "popular" links only, reflecting the higher attention. The template used to only include the most recent two Games (one each winter & summer) and the next upcoming two Games (again, one each winter & summer) until people started throwing all sort of extra stuff in there, reflecting their personal bias. First came the British, who insisted that 2012 be redundantly linked too. Next came the Sochi supporters. And now we have the Singapore supporters. It totally loses the purpose of that extra set of links to make that list too long, don't you think? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The point to stress here is that concensus can change and that what has been done before may not neccesarily be better. The fact will remain that plenty of publicity will be generated in any bidding activity, and once the bid is over, the winning city will come under intense scrutiny by many quarters until the games itself. Simply observe what happens after Beijing wins the bid for 2008, London for 2012, Sochi, and now Singapore. It is also presumptious to assume that there will be "XXX supporters" insisting on adding entries for particular cities, unless you are suggesting User:Hektor is a Singapore supporter[5]. Just who defines the purpose of this template? You, or the community?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
May I also point out that I am quite shocked that an Administrator like Andrwsc can actually engage in an avoiding edit warring behavior [6] [7] [8] over this issue despite my repeated calls to obtain concensus in this section. Does being an admin give him additional moral rights to engage in such behavior?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Get serious. Being an admin is no big deal. I'm just a normal editor in this conflict. I have not used any of the admin tools here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I am certainly serious, mate. Your behavior is unbecoming of an admin, all of whom are elected by the community in respect of their proper conduct which includes edit warring. Do not attempt to justify your improper conduct by claiming you are behaving as a "normal editor". Try telling that to a judge if you commit an offence as an "off-duty cop" that you are just a "normal citizen" at the time of offence. Again, I am shocked by your nonchalance.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Noted — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Sweet. Care to translate your words into action and undo your own damage then?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What "damage"? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you think?--Huaiwei (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Criteria

My personal view on what goes into the bottom bar are as follows:

  • Include the Summer and Winter Olympic Games and the Youth Summer and Winter Olympic Games.
  • Include the most recent edition of each event due to high publicity commonly associated with them.
  • Include all future editions of the games where the location has been selected.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I still think that's too many, and I think that if the Youth Games are included on this template, they ought to be on a second row. There are two sequences of Games — "main" summer/winter/summer/winter and Youth summer/winter/summer/winter. I think "merging" these two sets of Games onto a single row is awkward.
Perhaps the best solution is to remove the Youth Games from this template now that {{Youth Olympic Games}} has been created, and put the pair of navboxes together only on the top-level pages where it makes sense. Not every page that currently has {{Olympic Games}} transcluded as a navbox really needs links to the Youth Games, in my opinion. For example, all the per-Games per-sport articles are intended to have a trio of navboxes at the bottom. Look at Athletics at the 2004 Summer Olympics for example. Logically, the three ways to navigate from that specific page are:
So, does that page need a link to the Youth Games? I wouldn't think so. However, a top-level page like Olympic sports is a perfect candidate to have both this navbox and the Youth Games navbox at the bottom. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with Andrwsc's previous removal of the youth games from this template. They should not be included, they are substantially smaller events and just clutter up the template. As has been mentioned, there is a separate Youth Olympic Games template which can be used where needed. -- Chuq (talk) 07:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The YOG template was created just three days ago, with no real need for one at this point in time. Attempting to "derate" an event based on unsourced claims of them being "substantially smaller" has little relevance to actual notability, which is a far more relevant gauge to access inclusion or exclusion. I maintain my believe that it is premature to create a YOG template, and that this template should include the YOGs until the later becomes more established to warrant their own template.--Huaiwei (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to want it both ways. You say they are notable enough to warrant inclusion here, but not established enough to warrant their own template. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly, for I am not clamouring for inclusion in two templates. The YOGs are notable enough for inclusion in a list of Olympic events, but they are not notable enough to have their own template. Do you have an issue with this statement?--Huaiwei (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I think it is an illogical reason to justify the inclusion of the Youth Games in this template. I'm looking at from a navigation perspective. I think the Youth Games should be included in navboxes only on a subset of pages that this template is currently transcluded on. It's not a question of notability, so your point is a red herring. It's an issue of usefulness — as it should be for navigation boxes. Look at the full set of pages at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Olympic Games and ask yourself what makes the most sense here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I find it completely logical from a navigation perspective to use a single template for both the main and youth Olympic Games, and to use this one single standard template in all articles on each edition of the games. To insist on maintaining multple minor templates, debating on which template to use in individual articles (Why their inclusion in Olympic sports in particular?), and than claiming "superior logic" in this arrangement sounds hilariously illogical to me. As far as ease of navigation is concerned, it is the use of simple, inclusive templates which are of greater usefulness, and not one which presumes a user reading about Beijing 2008 will not be interested to then check out the Singapore 2010 page and vice versa.--Huaiwei (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that a mostly prose article such as 2008 Summer Olympics wouldn't have a link to 2010 Youth Olympic Games on it. I'm suggesting that results detail articles like Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics shouldn't have it. Also, splitting out the Youth Games onto a separate template is hardly a maintenance challenge. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Linking to the Youth Games from Olympic sports makes perfect sense because that same set of sports (or almost the same) would be on the programme for the Youth Games. Also, you insist on adding that link to {{Youth Olympic Games}}, so why do you question me about it? It seems we agree about that page. However, it makes zero sense to link to the Youth Games from All-time Olympic Games medal count, for example, for obvious reasons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with "derating" the YOG. They are not regular Summer or Winter Olympic Games, which is the point of the template. 117th IOC Session and Olympic Congresses are important IOC related events but we don't list them in the template, because they are not relevant to the topic at hand. Huaiwei, you are the only one arguing for this and you are from Singapore, are you sure this doesn't make you biased in any way? -- Chuq (talk) 08:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
After reading the opinions above, I would opt for the "Recent and upcoming games" to be omitted, but leave the "Youth Games" navigational row intact; and highlight/bold/italise the current & next one upcoming games. (the year number) - oahiyeel talk 10:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe just indicate it with a different colour. - oahiyeel talk 10:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cities

I made a version that includes the names of the cities the events were held at.


I'm not sure what should be done with the cities for the 1906 Olympics or the canceled Olympics. What do you all think?--WolFox (talk) 05:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes the template much harder to "parse" (i.e. find the Games you are looking for), and that's the reason why we didn't include the city names on these templates in the first place. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What if the years were bolded?--WolFox (talk) 05:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Then it would look different from thousands of other {{Navbox}}-based templates. What problem are you trying to solve here? This template has been pretty much the same for years, so I'm not sure what needs "fixing". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I understand why you might want to show the city names, because it definitely adds another layer of information to the template, but I'm not sure if it's completely necessary, nor is it, as Andrwsc said, easily readable. It would probably be best to just not include these in the template. Jared (t)  22:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

London & Sochi

There is plenty of space on the bottom bar to include London 2012 Artlondon (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi ArtLondon. I was not involved with designing this template, but I believe the intention is to show just the two most recent and upcoming Games as a "fast link" for casual readers. London is going to be added to the city bar at the end of the Beijing Games, so can you wait those 40 days for that event? If it makes you feel any better, once it's on the bar, it will be on there for the next 8 years (!). Cheers-Cbradshaw (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Only a suggestion as people keep adding it - might as well go on now as so much talk about it. Artlondon (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel like the "two before, two after" thing was really a rule we had when we devised that little bar a while back. At this point, I think any games that are getting press should be on the bar at the bottom. So I would have nothing against the addition of London. Jared (t)  00:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Concur; the current olympics generates much interest in future games. No reason given other than 'because' for not including them. There is space in the bar and only makes the page more accessible for readers. I have been bold and and reverted the deletion. I think the fact people keep adding them to the template is enough evidence of this (also it not that straight forward to edit so suggests determination). Artlondon (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It's def on the horizon now, so--surprise!--I added it to the list. I would still like to keep Sochi off the bar until the Vancouver Games. Cheers,Cbradshaw (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

<noinclude> content is not in nthe template.

(new thread from here)
No, you were not bold. You were rude. Here. Your editsummary says: obviously you didn't actually fully read the content you copied and pasted. Well, as said above, I did read it, but I (not you) understood that the the content was clearly not relevant to the template. It was <noinclude>...</noinclude> to the template. Whatever you make of it afterwards, and from a stalled unconcluded discussion, the text was not in the template, so it should be in the documentation. -DePiep (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Don' t mention some future Olympics?

A Comment says like "Don't mention Rio here after London has happened". Why??? I propose to delete this comment. -DePiep (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion two threads above. The intention of that row, for the past several years of this template's existence, is to just only list the two most recent and the two upcoming Games as a "fast link" for casual readers. Currently, that is Turin 2006, Beijing 2008, Vancouver 2010, London 2012. The "strange comment" is there to discourage others from adding more than those four links. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, thanx for the link to above. But still: Rio is decided. So we can add, in italics. Why not? -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said, the only four links listed are the two most recently played Olympics, and then the two upcoming Games. Rio would be the third upcoming Games and the fifth link. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but still: why leave Rio out? The template is incomplete for reasons of what? It's a sure upcoming games. -DePiep (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The links to Rio and Sochi are in fact on the template, but there are on the "Summer Games" and "Winter Games" rows, respectively. But as I said, on the bottom "Recent and upcoming Games" row, only four links are listed: the two most recently played Olympics, and then the next two upcoming Games. It's the same reason why London 2012 was not put on that row until Beijing 2008 ended. It's the same reason why Sochi 2014 will not be added to that row until Vancouver 2010 is completed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll be back on this. Btw, I separated the documentation in the page .../doc (green), as described in WP:DOC. Documentation may be edited more freely. -DePiep (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Re edit [9] by Zzyzx11: I did read the text. It was noinclude'd, so it was not in the transcluded template. Creating the /doc is is a technical thing, without altering the template-content. Which I did correctly. What you did afterwards, was changing the template-content (without consensus). -DePiep (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just being bold with that issue since it is becoming more standard on other navboxes, it is content that should not be on a documentation page anyway, and since nobody has recently seemed to object to it or has recently reverted it – unlike the issue that you raised, where there is evidence of other people reverting it within the past month and year.[10][11][12][13] So in that situation, I'm not bold enough to add Sochi and Rio on that row even if I wanted to. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
This detail, on the template-documentation, is continued below.- DePiep (talk) 04:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(<-)Clearly, already decided games should be mentioned (2014, 2016). Also, if there is a bidding going on (2018), it should be mentioned. There is no sound reason here to "wait" for mentioning (as is argued above). -DePiep (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

There IS a link to the 2014 Games and a link to the 2016 Games in the main section of the template. Perhaps we should just eliminate the bottom bar altogether? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Full stop. Future Games are italic. I think of (a motivation to ) mentioning recent/future cities in the list. Would help me in navigating. btw, good to put the documentation back. -DePiep (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

203.177.179.248 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2015

41.234.61.168 (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, but I suspect you are in the wrong place, as this page is only to discuss improvements to Template:Olympic Games.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Given the nature of this page, you will also need to reach consensus before any significant changes are implemented. - Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Please restore the cities in the navbox

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 consensus for including the cities. The rational of the majority opinion is that it is easier to remember a name than a year when looking for a specific games. There was a proposed layout, it had good support, but there is no consensus on it. Though it might be a good place to start going forward. AlbinoFerret 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
See my rationale for no city names in the section above. They clutter up the navigation, which is the primary use. Jmj713 (talk) 10:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Cities don't clutter up the navigation. On the contrary, they help to navigate. 37.54.3.215 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry but they do not, at least not to me. Each city is different in terms on the number of letters so there's no quick way to scan through the list and parse the entries. With just the year everything is uniform and you are able to quickly parse the list to pick the year you are looking for, which is what a navigation temple should do. Jmj713 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the semiprotected edit request from this thread. It is very improper to request an edit and request comments at the same time: you must seek consensus first, then request an edit. Please wait for the RfC to conclude. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe user Jmj713 must seek consensus first, because he removed the cities without consensus. I restored the edit request to return to the initial situation (with cities) before unconsensus edits. 37.54.3.215 (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@37.54.3.215, you don't need to keep adding the edit semiprotected template, there is already a RFC template that will notify more users, and having both is improper. Cannolis (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:BOLD I did what I believe to be an improvement, and then right away I posted my rationale here on the Talk page. It went without a comment for over a month. Jmj713 (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The RfC at hand is on the question of whether this template should list the host cities along with the years of the Olympic Games (i.e. this revision) or should list only the years (the current version). Please comment below. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Include cities. I disagree strongly that the city names "clutter up the navigation" - they serve readers who are looking for the Games in a particular place, rather than requiring readers to know in which year the Games were hosted by the city they're interested in. Including the cities is clearly better. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Include cities. The inclusion of cities makes the template more usable. In my experience, Olympic games are quite closely linked with the cities they were hosted in, and removing them just disorients readers. APerson (talk!) 01:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Only cities or years, not both I prefer cities, but years are fine as long as we choose one. Looking at the template before the edit in question, the template was incredibly cluttered and hard to read compared with how it looks now. I think cities is the better choice as most people I think know the Olympics by the city rather than the year (I can't tell you what year the Sydney Olympics were, but I know they were in Sydney). But having both is a poor decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wugapodes (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I support SubSeven's proposal below for including both. Wugapodes (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Note that the actual articles for the Games are not listed by their cities, so the Sydney Olympics are the 2000 Summer Olympics. So with my OCD/dyslexic nature, the template as laid out before was very confusing and chaotic. I thought about what made it so untidy and it was obvious: the city names, which are all of different length, so when looking for a specific Games, you basically need to look all over the place. With the years, anywhere you look you know exactly where you are. The other templates brought up above should also be fixed, but I'm interested in the Olympics only, not those other events. The template now looks clean and efficient and that's what a navigation template should look like. Jmj713 (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Omit cities. The navbox is indubitably far easier to parse without the cities; the equal-width years align nicely in columns. Readers who might want to navigate by city can follow the "Host cities" link at the top. However, if both are to be kept, the years should be made to stand out. Alakzi (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include cities. It may be cleaner to leave them out, but it significantly hinders navigation to leave the cities out. It might be ok to leave the years out, just disambiguate with the year cities that have hosted multiple times, and leave them in chronological order to hint at the timing. Future Olympic games that don't have a host city yet, and the WWII cancellations could still use the year, and keep the city names in italics for those future games with a chosen host city. VanIsaacWScont 01:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include cities but.. There is a strong association with Olympic Games incarnations to their host cities. I would propose an alternate layout, like a borderless table with each cell containing [year / city] so years are nicely lined up and can be easily parsed. --SubSeven (talk) 03:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Support This sounds like a very good idea. It solves the problem of not looking a mess, but allows for the use of cities which people recognize far more than the years. Wugapodes (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see a proposal template that you have in mind, it might work. Feel free to post it here. But the old layout with cities and years is simply unworkable because you have short city names and you have long city names, so the template is just a mess if you need to find a particular Games. Jmj713 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Sure. See below. --SubSeven (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I picked somewhat randomly from the events listed in Template:Multi-sport events plus some others that I thought of. I didn't see any that used a table as SubSeven proposed. I'd like to see that idea drafted or sandboxed too, but at the moment it seems there is a very strong precedent for including the host in these templates. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed alternate layout

1920 Antwerp 1940 Tokyo 1960 Rome 1980 Moscow 2000 Sydney
1924 Paris 1944 London 1964 Tokyo 1984 Los Angeles 2004 Athens
1928 Amsterdam 1948 London 1968 Mexico City 1988 Seoul 2008 Beijing
1932 Los Angeles 1952 Helsinki 1972 Munich 1992 Barcelona 2012 London
1936 Berlin 1956 Melbourne 1976 Montreal 1996 Atlanta 2016 Rio de Janeiro

This is the basic concept. --SubSeven (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

There's actually no need, because we already have these: {{Olympic Summer Games Host Cities}} and {{Olympic Winter Games Host Cities}}. If need be, these can be added to each OG article as needed, while keeping the overall navigation template (this one) as well. As far as the various templates brought up above, obviously WP:OTHERSTUFF applies here. Please understand that adding cities of various length (consider Sochi and Garmisch-Partenkirchen) makes the template visually very hard to read. Those wanting to add the cities back, congratulations on being superhuman. What I was striving specifically with the original edit conforms with this: "reduction of clutter", "compactness of the template compared to a standard list or table", and "aesthetically pleasing appearance" (see Wikipedia:Navigation templates#Advantages). Jmj713 (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Include cities. Not sure if this RfC is still open, just got notification on my talkpage. But I favor including because nobody remembers an Olympics by the year but everyone surely remembers by the host city. Also the alternate proposed layout above is only for host cities, and doesn't include links for bids, ceremonies, medal counts.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 17:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Look through this template's edit and discussion history and you will see that the consensus for the most part has always been to omit cities. We should stick to a clean and easily-parsed version. Jmj713 (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
If my count is correct then this RfC so far has 7 votes for include city, 1 vote for Omit cities and, and 2 votes for the alternate layout. I suggest you request some more feedback and whichever option has the most votes, we proceed with. This will respect the RfC without leaning on stale discussions.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
See WP:VOTE. Jmj713 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Again, see WP:VOTE. Also, I've brought this discussion to the attention of the Olympics WP, but so far none of the regulars have chimed in, they could be busy or away during summertime. The sandboxed version is better than the stream of city names, but still isn't as streamlined as years only, which this template has mostly always been. Please look through its edit and discussion history and you will see overall historical consensus since this template was created has always been to list years only. As well, no one has yet responded to my points brought up above on 13 August. Jmj713 (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2015 (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.

Template simplified

I simplified the template by removing city names and reasons for cancellation. These details are not necessary for a navigation template, which should be easy to parse quickly to find the needed article. I think this works best. If you have any thoughts, please discuss. Thanks! Jmj713 (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the discussion below did not address the issues I raised and was closed. Jmj713 (talk) 14:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2017

171.7.39.161 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Draftpages (future articles after year only of 2034)

No longer contentious: Outdated objection

The topic is on moratorium until April 29. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

The postponement is no longer "contentious," for here is the official announcement: https://www.olympic.org/news/joint-statement-from-the-international-olympic-committee-and-the-tokyo-2020-organising-committee. Since the postponement to 2021 is now final, there needs to be a way of making it clear in the Template as well as the Article. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The postponement is not contentious, and from what I'm seeing in edit summaries that is not the issue at hand. The issue, and one that is currently being discussed here on the talk page of 2020 Summer Olympics, is that it is still officially being branded as the "2020 Summer Olympics". The discussion here should be whether we just leave it as-is (until the RM is concluded) or include some sort of indication that it has been postponed until 2021. That needs to be a discussion, though, not edit warring until a consensus is reached. Primefac (talk) 03:09, 29 March 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Olympic_Games/Archive_1&oldid=1244173580"