Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey

Hello, I've decided to start working on this list, and I was considering changing the table format. This is an example, I think it looks tidier and more professional, but I could go either way. Any opinions are welcome. Thanks, Scorpion0422 01:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's more cluttered with all the table lines. The goal is simply to give who the team members were, and it wouldn't help with anything else like sorting, unless you wanted to go extreme by combining every table, which I'd be against. And the names in the same row aren't any way related, so I think the change is unnecessary. Just listing the country followed by the team members is enough, and they don't need to be in individual cells. Reywas92Talk 02:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about Option C? One of my concerns with the list was that it was a bit of a pain for anyone who wanted just a straight up list without the individual medalists, and I believe option C helps solve that. The negative is that anyone who wants to use ctrl-F to find a player would have to open all of the collapsed headers. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Option C looks really nice, but the search thing might be a deal-breaker. How about making a separate section with just the team names? It would be a little redundant, but I agree that only having the huge table loses useful overview. —JAO • T • C 17:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the look of Option C the best. It's clean and organized. I'm not as concerned about the ctrl-F issue, if the reader knows the name of the person they're looking for they can find what team he played on via the WP article on that individual player. I like tables that are clean and have expandable information if the reader wants it. For what it's worth. H1nkles (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I do like option C. It just seems really short having only the countries. Is it possible to show all the names for all three countries in a particular year at once? When you open up one country the othr two columns seem empty. Reywas92Talk 20:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I still strong prefer format A. What is the problem that a list looks like a list? "List of Olympic medalists" so all medalists are listed together? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Format A is far best, no problem with many names. I'll try to set up some stubby articles for players when I find some time... --Tone 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I have made the switch, and I am willing to go back to the old version if there are any problems. I brought it up at WP:HOCKEY and everyone there seems to prefer C. There is nothing wrong with a list that looks like a list, but my concern was that most people who visit the page would be more interested in what team won the year rather than who the individual members were. As it was, it was difficult to browse through and pick out winners, so I thought the collapsible tables would help. That way, anyone who wants to know who the members of a team were can easily find it. -- Scorpion0422 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
In format C the list is not a "List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey" but a "List of nations won Olympic medals"? Format C is perfect for the main page "Ice hockey at the Olympic Games" where this style is already established. But the "List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey" means for me the individual winners. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 03:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, the fact that Ice hockey at the Olympic Games includes the shorter list indeed makes it redundant in the List. Maybe though we could add a little link "For an overview of medalist nations, see..." or something. —JAO • T • C 08:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. Or maybe even that is redundant. --Tone 15:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
This discussion is similar to one we had about List of Olympic medalists in alpine skiing. The whole point of these list of people articles is that they are not isolated lists, but they are companion lists to the respective summary articles such as Alpine skiing at the Winter Olympics and Ice hockey at the Olympic Games. It looks to me like the quest to bring some of these lists up to FL status is done at the expense of the main article, and certainly without consideration for the page structure and style guidelines we have had in place for a couple of years. (I suppose that's a consequence of FL being so easy; it is "low-hanging fruit" to work on those pages versus bringing the summary pages up to FA status...) Please consider the original intent of the Category:Olympic medalists by sport pages—we needed a place to identify every single name for each of the ~15,000 medals awarded in Olympic history, and listing those in the per-sport summary articles was simply too cumbersome, so we created the lists of names pages. But the alternative of "bulking up" these list pages by duplicating content originally placed on the summary articles is not helpful either. The right solution is to make it easy for a reader to switch between summary and detail views. That is what the original hatnotes accomplished, but improvement is certainly possible. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I have to admit, that is a pretty convincing argument, and I suppose there is the table on the main page, so I guess I'll go back to the original version for now. I'm curious though, is there anything else on any of the medalist pages I've worked on that you would rather see moved back to the main sport page? -- Scorpion0422 18:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Also replied on my talk, but to repeat and elaborate here, I think all the "statistics" sections are more appropriate on the summary articles. The approach taken for alpine skiing is not scaleable to all Olympic sports, especially where we had to split into men/women (athletics, swimming, rowing, etc.) or by discipline (wrestling). I think the ideal FL for a list of Olympic medalists is fairly close to what we have for most sports, but with solid prose introduction sections (summarizing the history of the sport at the Olympics, which is covered in more detail in the main article), solid references (including the IOC database, of course, but also all the relevant official reports, and also probably sports-reference.com), and as many free photos as we can find, and an improved navigation system to all the other related articles. For the latter, we have a horizontal navbox at the bottom of each page, but perhaps a vertical navbox for the series might be more obvious and useful. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am working on a Triple Gold Club FT (the TGC is a term used to describe hockey players who have won the Stanley Cup, an Olympic gold and a World Championship gold) and I need some opinions on what the scope should be. There are three possibilities:

  1. A "List of champions" topic with the Triple Gold Club (current FLC), List of IIHF World Championship medalists (FL), List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey (current FLC) and List of Stanley Cup champions (FL). I think it seems a little forced though, although it might work (after all, the TGC is more a summary of the lists than the articles for the actual awards)
  2. Triple Gold Club (FLC), Stanley Cup (FA), Ice Hockey World Championships and either Ice hockey at the Olympic Games or List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey.
  3. All seven articles: Triple Gold Club, Ice Hockey World Championships, List of IIHF World Championship medalists, Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey, Stanley Cup and List of Stanley Cup champions.

Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 18:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Great idea; I think all seven articles is a suitably high goal to aim for! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Winter Olympics - Nation games summary

Hi all,

Perhaps this belongs at WP:OLYMOSNAT's talk page, but I thought I would mention here that I've created event tables for the winter events that are similar to the Summer tables implemented for the 2008 'Nation' pages. They are on my user page.

I was hoping to start implementing them on Torino articles over the next weeks/months, if others agree that they are correct and appropriate. Also, it would make our setup for Vancouver easier to have them done now.

There are only a few areas where I was uncertain:

a) Snowboarding, all the events are in separate tables, since they are not similar in format at all, but I am not sure if this can be streamlined at all.

i)I'm not sure how to properly classify half pipe results; I've used a strike through to indicate the qualifying run that doesn't count, but I'm not sure how to rank the second qualy run. Right now, I'm assuming it's a totally different run and treating the top scorer at the end as #1, etc.

ii) Should PGS results be presented, as a total time between two runs, or each run separately?

b) Speed Skating, the 500m uses two separate races, while the others are just a single race, is this level of detail useful? I included it, but it does add a couple of unfortunate-looking lines

c) Ice Hockey, there are no box-score templates, this is not under the purview of WP:OLY, and I will take it up with the Ice Hockey project to create one.

d) Nordic Combined, I have called the time difference between runs 'deficit', but I'm not sure whether this is the proper name to use.

I do not have tables at this precise moment for the SS Team pursuit and the C-C Sprints, but those should be forthcoming soon.

I have probably missed some other obvious things, so please take a look, thanks :) Edged (talk) 05:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of further notes, I've found a hockey boxscore template and added the events that were missing, so ignore those parts Edged (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That all seems good to me, though my knowledge about how some of the events work is, in places, non-existant. The only suggestion i'd make is that instead of striking through runs that don't count put them in brackets, it makes them easier to read and compare (I think this is how we ended up representing the race results in the Summer Games sailing events that were discarded). Whilst it does look a bit messy having so many snowboarding tables i think the formats are too different to combine them effectively (similar problems occur for the cycling events at the summer games). Basement12 (T.C) 12:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

FL vs. FA Emphasis

I have just finished reading some of the discussion on the previous string regarding the Ice Hockey Olympic Medalists list. Andrwsc brought up a very compelling topic that I think should be further discussed. That being the emphasis this project places on Featured Lists vs. Featured Articles. He describes the natural tendency to go for lists as "low hanging fruit", which I think is a great visual. There are currently 8 FAs on the project's main page (with Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games being a bit of a stretch but whatever) as opposed to 15 FLs. I would like to propose a general effort and emphasis be placed on improving articles to FA (or at least GA) vs. the current emphasis that seems to be placed on FLs. Of course FLs are good, they add to the project, I'm not criticizing the work that has been done. But since the foundation of Wikipedia are its articles, I think the Olympics project would benefit immensely from an intentional push to improve its articles. Foundational articles such as Ancient Olympics, Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics, Youth and Paralympics are great places to start. Many of the (year) Summer/Winter Olympics (1996 Summer Olympics for example) are in desperate need of work. Even getting them to GA status would be an improvement. FA of course is the goal but most editors don't have the time to invest in getting an article to that level. What do you think? Am I off base in my assessment of the situation? I know I stand with all of you in wanting to make this project better, especially as we build to the next Games in 2010. We have a year before the world once again turns its attention to us. Why not take the time to really improve these articles? I welcome your thoughts. H1nkles (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are spot-on. I would even welcome any effort to bring the top-level per-Games articles up to B class! I guess the problem is that the scope of this WikiProject is huge, and it is both difficult to find a useful place to start and easy to get burnt out. Personally, after Beijing I haven't done a lot of Olympic editing, but am hoping to get back into it soon. I think our priority ought to be as follows:
  1. "Foundational" articles as you list
  2. 46 individual Games top-level articles (such as 1996 Summer Olympics, as you mention)
  3. ~60 individual sport top-level articles (e.g. Athletics at the Olympics) plus the lists of medalists
  4. ~220 individual nation top-level articles (e.g. Hungary at the Olympics)
  5. ~800 per-Games sport articles (e.g. Swimming at the 1976 Summer Olympics)
  6. ~3200 per-Games nation articles (e.g. Cuba at the 1980 Summer Olympics)
  7. ~5000 individual event articles (e.g. Athletics at the 1988 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres)
I think we've got the style guidelines reasonably nailed down for the #5 and #6 articles, and perhaps #7, so those are perhaps the easiest for "gnome-like" work on formatting cleanup and content completion. I think the biggest area of concern is the #3 articles, which are mostly a set of tables and in desperate need of some consistency guidelines and prose development. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I fully support that. I like working on articles but I stick with lists because I suck at writing prose (and I don't have the patience for some of the research). My feeling, however, it not necessarily that articles vs. lists is the question. I root for bettering the more vital topics, whatever type of page it is, though they do tend to be articles: What Andrwsc pointed out. I can't help too much in writing the articles, but I can surely help review them, etc. Reywas92Talk 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sort of along the same lines, I just prefer working on lists. Also, I'm not much of an expert on the history and rules of the Olympics, so I stick to what I'm really good at. However, I would be up for pitching in on some more important articles wherever I could. Maybe we should try to get the Winter Olympic Games page to FA before the 2010 Olympics?-- Scorpion0422 20:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

These are all excellent thoughts, and I fully support doing what you're good at/passionate about. I know I'm much better at working on things I love vs. things I'm not excited about. For me, working on formatting tables, code, etc. is akin to nails on a chalk board, but I'm good at writing - though my time for research is extremely limited (as is everyone's). I like Andrwsc's priority ranking and I feel like that is a good place to start. I was also leaning towards concentrating on the Winter Olympic articles in preparation for 2010. One point of discussion that will need to be addressed is the format for the 46 individual Games articles. What main headings does each one require? Currently they are all over the map. I think a separate discussion string should be started for that. At any rate, the Olympic Games article is at FAC right now. I think a fantastic goal would be to create a Featured Topic for the Olympic Games with at least all the foundational articles listed. Since we have a lot of list people active at the project could you folks look at those foundational articles and see what lists could be added? I think each FA requires a list. Any good reviewers, like Reywas92, who can give suggestions for making those articles better, please do a review and list suggestions on the article's talk page - I'll be happy to go through them and make corrections. A combined effort will lighten the load and hopefully help prevent burnout. H1nkles (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the featured topic idea. After Olympic Games, some other "foundational" articles that are featured content or close enough to finish the job, are List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games and List of participating nations at the Winter Olympic Games (both FL), Olympic sports and Olympic Games ceremony (both GA), Ancient Olympic Games, Summer Olympic Games, Winter Olympic Games, and Olympic symbols (all B class). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
You read my mind. In an effort for completeness I would add Youth Olympics and Paralympics along with accompanying lists, but these probably wouldn't be necessary to get a Featured Topic approved. Featured Topics don't require all the articles be FA (I think). I will start to work on the Winter Olympics article in the next couple of weeks and try to get it to FA prior to 2010. Goal would be to get it on the Main Page on the day of the Vancouver opening ceremonies!
I've already done a little bit of work in the Winter Olympic Games page, I reformated the "List of Winter Olympic Games" table and added one to the "Current sport disciplines" section. I'm still a little iffy on the latter one, what are some thoughts on it? -- Scorpion0422 22:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Since I'm so terrible at lists I hesitate to comment, but you asked so I'll say that the Current sports disciplines list is a bit bare, it conveys the information but could be spruced up. What about adding images like: and to the table? We'll also have to cite it, which shouldn't be a problem as I'm sure the program for the 2010 Games has been published by now. I'll see what I can find. H1nkles (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've created a couple of tables showing where our important articles are in terms of grade here. It shows the #1, #2, and #3 categories listed above. Not precisely pretty, I guess. I'm thinking many of them could use an assessment, as they probably haven't been graded in a while (Olympic Games ceremony, for example, just went from Start to GA in one step). -- Jonel (Speak to me) 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Winter Olympics (continued)

Winter Olympic Games
Olympic flame at Turin during the
2006 Winter Olympic Games.
Games
1924 • 1928 • 1932 • 1936 • 1940 • 1944 • 1948
1952 • 1956 • 1960 • 1964 • 1968 • 1972 • 1976
1980 • 1984 • 1988 • 1992 • 1994 • 1998 • 2002
 2006 • 2010 • 2014 • 2018 • 2022
Sports (details)
Alpine skiing • Biathlon • Bobsleigh • Cross‑country skiing • Curling • Figure skating • Freestyle skiing • Ice hockey • Luge • Nordic combined • Short track speed skating • Skeleton • Ski jumping • Snowboarding • Speed skating

What does anyone think of adding an infobox/template like this to the top of Winter Olympic Games page? I'm still working on it, but that's basically what it would look like (can anyone think of anything else that could be added?) -- Scorpion0422 16:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

This is nice. And a general olympic box could be included in the article Olympic games. There's just a flag now and it looks a bit empty... --Tone 17:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I like it and I think it gives readers a quick reference point to jump out to other articles related to the Winter Games. It also means we need to make sure those articles are up to snuff. See above. :) H1nkles (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Nice idea! I'd add a heading before the list of years, and I'd also just add the wiki markup to the article instead of making a single-use template. I don't think any other content needs to be added to this vertical navbox (which is really what it is, not an infobox); the list of Games and list of sports is wholly appropriate for next-level navigation. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll add a heading, but what should it be called? "Olympiads"? I also whipped up one for the Summer Games here. -- Scorpion0422 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the text should be made smaller. DeMoN2009 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Done, the non-header text is now 95%. Is it better? -- Scorpion0422 19:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the little things make a big difference. Thanks. DeMoN2009 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to try moving it to the article. -- Scorpion0422 21:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've tweaked the formatting a bit (e.g. add borders between sections). Look ok? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Great template! Looks fine. DeMoN2009 11:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing

Would anyone object if I merged the List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing (women) and List of Olympic medalists in cross-country skiing (men) together. Neither is particularily long (18,492 and 25,106). In terms of medals given out, a combined list would be shorter than the speed skating list (which is 58,624), although there are more events. -- Scorpion0422 20:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask why not the other way around and split the skating one into two lists but I presume you are trying to get it to a FL and you are following the style of the other lists. No objection, go ahead. --Tone 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Just one tiny detail. I've noticed that we have different styles for medal tables in different articles. The most recent is that of Beijing Olympics, like Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics that adds country name to the flag. We should probably unify the styles since the articles are within the same topic. --Tone 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. For a couple of years we have been using {{flagIOCmedalist}} to render the flag/name/nation on two lines in per-sport per-Games tables (such as on Athletics at the 2008 Summer Olympics), and using {{flagIOCathlete}} to render the same on one line, in tables that have hundreds of entries, where the two-line format would double the size of already-long lists. Are you suggesting we unify these? I'm not sure that is a good idea. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I see your rationale. It would make the lists too long. --Tone 21:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't object. The talk page shows a small discussion about splitting because a combined page exceeded 30K, but I think the informal threshold for page splits is higher now than it used to be. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games‎

Olympic sport
Ice hockey
Ice hockey
Ice Hockey
Governing
body 		International Ice Hockey Federation
Since 1920 Summer Olympics
Since 1924 Winter Olympics
Events Men's tournament (since 1920)
Women's tournament (since 1998)
Most
medals 		 Vladislav Tretiak (URS) (3-1-0)
 Igor Kravchuk (RUS) (2-1-1)
 Jiří Holík (TCH) (0-2-2)
Games
1920 • 1924 • 1928 • 1932 • 1936 • 1948 • 1952 • 1956 • 1960 • 1964 • 1968 • 1972 • 1976 • 1980 • 1984 • 1988 • 1992 • 1994 • 1998 • 2002 • 2006 • 2010
Medals awarded
Gold Silver Bronze Total
24 24 24 72
Medalists

I tried a FTC for the Triple Gold Club with just the lists and, as I thought, it's not going well. So, I've decided to start working on Ice hockey at the Olympic Games‎ (and Ice Hockey World Championships). I have most of the history section done (I just need 1984-1994) and it's got a basic overview, but it's still missing some of the more minor details. I also think it mentions Canada a bit too much (although that is kind of unavoidable) and strays a bit too far into IIHF/Worlds territory at times (again, kind of unavoidable if you want a full history). If anyone could take a look at it, I'd appreciate it. Also, I've been considering adding an Olympic sport infobox. Like the one on the side here. Please note that I was in a rush when I did it, so it's not perfect, but it's basically what I'm after.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 2 March 2009

I'm now done with the major expansion (except the lead) and now it just needs clean up. The page could easily be split into sections like "Rule changes", "tournament formats" and "status of professionals", but I thought it would be best to start off with everything in the history section. Does anyone think such sections would be needed? -- Scorpion0422 18:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Can some members please comment? I want to start implementing this, but I would like some feedback first. -- Scorpion0422 15:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think it would be better to split the information into different sections (Rule changes, tournament formats and status of professionals) on that page. In the first bit of the page, most of the history can be cut out of that, as there is a history section at the bottom.
The other stuff...
I agree where it mentions Canada a bit too much, maybe centred on North America too much (my opinion), but the main problem I see is the 'Miracle on Ice' section. Although that is what the tournament was famous for, there were other teams there, which some people seem to forget. Also 'NHL era' - I'm not sure if that is the best title, or whether it should mention basketball there. Apart from that, you are doing a great job. I would help but I'm trying to improve other articles. DeMoN2009 16:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, what about the infobox? About the Miracle on Ice section, what is it you want me to add about other teams? I admit it's a bit longer than I'd like, but I don't see what else about other teams I could add. For "NHL Era", I was unsure about the title, but I thought it was important to establish that those were the years that allowed NHL players and the basketball mention was also important because it motivated the IIHF, Gary Bettman and other NHL officials to follow suit so they could give the game bigger exposure. -- Scorpion0422 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
You know, I'm not keen on that infobox, sorry. I'm not sure that these articles even need infoboxes. The "Most medals" information is borderline trivia versus essential information; the "medals awarded" numbers seem superflous for a team sport (why repeat "24" three times and then sum the total?); and the governing body, start date, and list of events could all be summarized in the lede. I won't vehemently oppose this infobox if you strongly advocate it, but I just don't see the need. I like infoboxes where appropriate, but I also don't think every article needs them. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
My main goal was basically to provide quick links to every year but I decided to try a full infobox. Would you prefer a template similar to the ones for the Summer Games that just links to essential pages? (the years, the list of medalists, the IIHF) -- Scorpion0422 18:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but at that point, it is not an infobox, but is really a vertical navbox at the top of the page, replacing the standard horizontal {{Olympic Games Ice hockey}} navbox at the bottom of the page. This style is perfectly suitable, per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, and we already use it to navigate between events of one sport in a single Games (e.g. {{AthleticsAt2008SummerOlympics}}), so that would not be inconsistent with existing Olympic articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Subst:User:Scorpion0422/Page of messin' around Part V How is this then? -- Scorpion0422 19:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The new infobox is better, mainly because it takes up less space. My point about the Miracle On Ice is that, giving that it's own section, even though all the others are periods that involve at least two. You obviously have to mention it, as even though I wasn't born and even now think that it's importance is bigger than it should be, many Americans view it as important. It's just that it seems to take up too much space, and it could be fitted in as a paragraph or two in the 1956–1976 section (although it would have to be renamed 1956–1980). And I will admit that I was wrong about the mention of basketball and the NHL era - I didn't see the importance in them before. DeMoN2009 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Update A "Inception as an Olympic sport" section was added and I reworked it and included "men's tournament" and "women's tournament" sections which summarize the events as well as the various tournament formats. Does everyone like it? I'm still unsure if I should add "status of professionals" as it's own section, because I kind of prefer having it chronologically. I also removed some of the casual mentions of Canada. -- Scorpion0422 20:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have any comments on a template? If it is going to be used on every sport page, I would like as much project input as possible. -- Scorpion0422 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Template Colors

Could the color combinations in the templates such as the following Template:Footer 1956 Olympic Champions Basketball Men be fixed. It is very hard to see what the hell is written at the headers of these templates. Also see WP:Color if you have questions regarding the use of colors. --Gman124 talk 05:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, yes, that should be changed. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Separators as en dashes, not hyphens

I probably should have done this before, not halfway through, but I am informing you all that I have been moving all the sport at 2008 articles for individual events from using hyphens as separators to using en dashes as separators – i.e. from "Sport at the 2008 Summer Olympics - event" to "Sport at the 2008 Summer Olympics – event" (Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race was moved earlier because of its featured article candidacy so that it could comply with the MOS). As these moves are being done to comply with the MOS, I don't think they are controversial, but if there are any issues, please leave them at my talk page. The hyphenated versions are still existing as redirects. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the archives, there doesn't seem to be resistance, and anyway, if you all ever intend to take these articles to FA, these articles would have to be moved anyway. I am doing the dirty work now and am making the entire format consistent. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I will ever get to the articles for every Olympics, but I will chip away at categories. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I finished 2008—at least everything that was properly categorized. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That's been on the to-do list since August. I followed up with an update to links in the event navigation boxes, so that each page will properly appear as a self-link (bold black) when browsing. Fixed and renames one page that did not apear in its proper category. All other events showed blue links after update. I also renamed a couple of volleyball roster pages, but also found two red links for water polo rosters in the {{WaterPoloAt2008SummerOlympics}} template. I was unable to locate these pages. I suspect that they never existed. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The next logical step would be to do the articles in Category:2006 Winter Olympics events. I will get on to it soon, probably during the weekend. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Question. This point was raised previously (possibly around the time of the last Olympics), and there was mention at the time of a bot being used to move these all. Did nothing come of this? Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact here is the previous discussion, which did get to the bot request stage, but the request expired. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
The bot's owner hasn't edited since around the time the request was made. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Looking at the discussion, looks like editors did not resist the change, but did not think it was a high priority. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I think I've done all the 2006 Winter Olympics articles, fixed navboxes etc. I've definately done all of the category. I found some uncategorised ones too, which I moved and catergorised. Hopefully I got them all, but it's difficult to know. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from moving the articles, there are several links to be fixed as well (templates and similar). To save time, a bot would still be a reasonable help here. --Tone 21:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I was changing the main articles, and templates as well as moving the pages. Whilst a bot would be great, I spotted alot of other things wrong like the case of titles being incorrect in the main articles/templates. Also as I mentioned some aren't categorised so a bot wouldn't be able to find them (I think). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't run my own bot but I believe finding such articles is not a big problem with a wise search, like titles including "at the + Olympics" and the wrong dash. I don't know if search is case-sensitive but this can probably be solved as well. Maybe list all typical errors and then someone with a bot can fix them all. Anyone here oeprates a bot maybe? Or we can ask for help as well. --Tone 22:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who may be interested, I pulled a list of all article space pages (excluding redirects) that have "Olympic" in their name, and placed the list here. Note that not all of these pages are related to the Olympics. This list can be extracted a and copied to Excel or your favorite text processing tool to allow you to search and filter the list further. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:OlympicSportHeader

{{OlympicSportHeader}} (example of use here)

It's pretty simplistic because I figured not a lot of pages would use it, so I didn't bother doing anything fancy. If there is interest in adapting it for use on ALL sport by year pages like {{Infobox Country Olympics}}, then I would be willing to try and adapt it. I decided not to add it to all pages and I'll let the regular editors of the other sport pages decide if they want to use it. -- Scorpion0422 19:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it needs a label for the governing federation; in the ice hockey example, the IIHF link looks odd without anything.
As for the per-Games sport pages, we had already discussed using {{Infobox Olympic event}} for those pages, in addition to the per event pages (for example, on both Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Swimming at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metre individual medley). I think the navbox pair at the bottom of each per-Games sport pages (e.g. {{EventsAt2008SummerOlympics}} and {{Olympic Games Swimming}}) already serve the two directions we think people will navigate from those articles (i.e. to the same sport in a different year, or to another sport in the same year). I don't think anything needs to change for those articles. But as a top-of-page navigation box for the top-level "Sport at the Olympics" pages (only), it has merit! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Better? I also added a row for medalists too. -- Scorpion0422 20:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Not better in my browser, alas. There is word wrap, and very little spacing between the two columns. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Wait, the word wrap is actually appearing in the template? How about now? Also, about the medalists lists, if they are divided by gender (ie. Cross-country skiing at the Winter Olympics) then you need to include "|gensport = yes". If it's not, then you need "|nogen = yes". -- Scorpion0422 20:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
"Federation" appears on a second line by itself, and is centered, so looks odd. Also, that section comes right after the "Games" header, which doesn't make sense. Maybe leave the federation out (it is a little tangential to the topic of the navbox) and leave a centered "List of medalists" at the bottom? The mention of each sports federation could easily be incorportated into the lede (or second paragraph) of those articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Scrapped. If need be, it can be included in the "otherlinks" section at the bottom. I also moved the medalists to the bottom. Should links to the other sports be included, or does it matter? I've got to go for few hours, so you can go ahead and make any necessary changes yourself. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New field. Add "|reclist=yes" ONLY if there is a list of records. Here are examples of the template:

  • The sport, image and appearances fields are mandatory.
  • otherlinks is optional
  • And then with the medalist/records lists, things get tricky. In both cases it's optional, so you don't have to use it (although the records list depends on there being a medalist list.) Examples of use:

Like I said above, I'll leave it to the regular editors of a page to decide if they want to use it (I just added the above ones as tests). Is anyone having problems with it? -- Scorpion0422 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but templates like this already exist as "footers"? I do not see the need of having a footer and a header with exactly the same contents (pictogram and links to years, medalists and records), there is not a single difference... To me this is valueless and a kind of "overtemplating"? Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a given that if these headers are adopted, the footers should be deleted. So the question really is whether they are better as headers than footers. Certainly agree that both is not an option. —JAO • T • C 17:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I prefer template in the header. Apart from the fact that I find it nice, I also find it useful because it shrinks the width of the introduction and thus makes it a little easier to read. --Tone 18:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The footers are still needed. The header is just meant for the main sport page, while the footer is for all of the by year pages. So the footer could be removed from Ice hockey at the Olympic Games, but not deleted. -- Scorpion0422 18:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea, as this template will only be used on the sports pages. If it was for use on all of the years then I would say no because we have the footer. DeMoN2009 12:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course I did not mean that the footer template itself should be deleted, just removed from the main sports pages. I should probably have been clearer about that. —JAO • T • C 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games (once again)

I would like some input on the article because my goal is to take it to FAC soon and have it as the TFA at some point during the 2010 Olympics (preferably the opening day so that stability won't be as large of a concern). These are my concerns right now:

  1. What does anyone think of the formatting of the page? It used to be with info on the format of the two events, then a huge history section ([1]). However, I felt there was a lot of repetition in there because many of the things were related. So the current version merged everything together and split it by Events > men's/women's tournaments > [various games] (I also added a rules section).
  2. Should anything be added to the rules section? (perhaps a small section on doping rules?)
  3. Should a "status of professional players" section be added? I almost added one, but I felt that it worked better in history because some of the other statements are supported by it.
  4. Is there enough on the rules and actual running of the tournaments?
  5. Is it too focused on Canada? It's true that Canada did dominate the tournament for a long time, but some may claim there is a bias towards Canada in the article. (although I think I have devoted just as much time to the Svoiets and US during their years. I'm not as sure about Sweden, the Czechs or Finland)
  6. Does the article at some points tread too far from the Olympics and more into IIHF/World Championship territory?
  7. Should more info on the women's tournament be added?
  8. Have there been any hockey related doping issues that should be mentioned? I think José Théodore ran into problems in 2006, and Dick Pound is always running his mouth about how drug filled the NHL is, but should these be mentioned? Perhaps a small section on doping could be added to "rules"?

So any and all comments and opinions are welcome. Any comments on the format would be particularily useful. This is the "[sport] at the Olympics" for a current sport to make it to GA, so it could be used as a template and others could be modeled after it, which is why input would be nice. -- Scorpion0422 21:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In my limited experience with the FAC process I have noted some trends in what the FA reviewers are looking for. I'll give you my thoughts here and then go through the article with your questions in mind. This will likely take me most of the day intermixed with real life so bear with me. Here are my general thoughts on FAC and what the reviewers are looking for:
  • First keep in mind that these are usually not subject matter experts. You may get a hockey fan who will jump into the review but for the most part they have interests in other things.
  • MOS compliance is huge. They will go through your article with a fine toothed comb making sure every aspect complies with the MOS (hard spaces, hard dashes, punctuation in the photo captions, location of photos in a third-level heading, the list goes on). You won't be able to catch everything before you nominate it. The reviewers have an encyclopedic knowledge of the MOS so just fix what they suggest.
  • Be active on the talk page, make fixes as quickly as you can.
  • Prose is huge as well. These editors are the types to write, "there should be a comma between this and that" rather than just jump in and put the comma there (which would be much easier). It's maddening but that is what it is. If your prose is not tight to begin with then they could demote it right away. Be sure to have a thorough prose review by a disinterested editor before you put it up. I recommend submitting it to WP:PR or at least have some good prose people here at the project sift through it. I'll be happy to help in this regard. The GA review is a good start but FAC is a whole new level, it should be reviewed a couple more times at least before being nominated. Especially having it reviewed by Peer Review will add credibility to your nomination.
  • It's all about consensus. One or two objects doesn't derail it but work hard to address their concerns in the hopes that they'll change their minds.
  • References. Make sure every reference is credible. I haven't checked your references but common references that they frown upon are infoplease.com, ask.com, any travel guides, blogs, and an over-reliance on webpages vs. books. Books, journals, newspapers are viewed much better than web pages (unless it's ESPN or CNN or Sports Illustrated). Even so make sure you have a good number of books if possible in your references.
  • Photos should have no clean up tags and Fair Use rationale should exist if necessary. Also make sure the photos are topical and add to the article.
  • Reviewers will start messing with your article, I had reviewers taking out photos and adding other ones, which really bugged me, but you kind of have to let it slide.
  • Comprehensiveness is an issue. Be sure your article is comprehensive but does not get too detailed. See Summary Style for helpful hints in this regard. I think most of your questions above are related to this issue. Just keep in mind that this is only one of a series of issues that they consider very heavily.

In closing the article is supposed to reflect the very best articles in Wikipedia. This is a tall order, but a worthy goal to attempt to acheive. This article, if passed, will set the template for all other "[sport] at the Olympics" articles to follow. In that regard it is important that we get one to pass so that we can format every other article to that one. I'll go through your article and answer some of the questions you have. Good luck. H1nkles (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 1 format

This is really subjective, one person will find it intuitive and comprehensive, while another will completely disagree. I think the format is fine. I think there are things that could be added but as far as a breakdown of the information, it flows nicely. I would consider further breaking down the women's tournament section. You have the men's tournament laid out over several periods. I know the women's tournament is still very young but I think to be consistent with the men's section you should have a summary of the process the IOC took to make the women's tournament and then break out the three tournaments from 1998–2006 in their own subsection. It is also more equitable to our female readers. I haven't read the article yet, just looking more at the format overall. Sections could be added but I'll address that later in your list of question. By the way there are several books on women in hockey. Here are a couple of examples, [2], [3], and [4]. I haven't read these but they should be a start.

Does the Miracle on Ice warrant its own section? Being an American, of course I would biasly say yes, but I want to be sure nationalism doesn't creep in. It has been listed as an epochal moment in hockey and Olympic history, but is it viewed that way from an international stand point? Would a British, or a Russian reader roll their eyes at the fact that this event gets its own section while the 1936 or 1952 upsets of Canada gets barely a mention (for example). I don't know how this event is perceived around the world, any comments on this would be instructive. H1nkles (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the section could be trimmed, but I think it warrants an extended mention. The IIHF named it the top international hockey story (it should have been the Summit Series, but oh well), and how many Winter Olympic-or even hockey-events have had several films made about them? It's section could be merged, but the section before and after it were a tad long, so I felt it would work as a stand-alone section. -- Scorpion0422 20:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Good thoughts there, it does break the sections up nicely, I'd leave it, I was just trying to be overly critical. H1nkles (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
As a British person, I think it does take up too much of the article, just cut bits out to make it one paragraph and then put it in the section before or after it. If the reader wants to know more about it, link to the Miracle on Ice article. DeMoN2009 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 2 Rules

I think your information on the qualification breakdown for the 2010 Games should go under the Future Tournaments section as it is more specific to the 2010 Tournament rather than an overall qualification rules topic. The qualification rules seem fairly fluid from one Games to the next. Is there any reason for that? What were the qualification rules prior to 1976? That will be a glaring question in the minds of reviewers, can anything be added?

Add imperial conversions to the rink dimensions for the early Olympic hockey tournaments.

Steroid use rules would be a good addition given the hot topic that steroids are right now.

You wikilink rink twice in subsequent paragraphs, once is fine. H1nkles (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 3 Professionalism

The issue of professionals at the Olympics was incredibly contentious through the 1980's. I think a section discussing this from the Hockey stand point would be constructive. The 1992 Dream team in basketball paved the way for professionals in other sports to play. I like your synopsis at the beginning of the "NHL Era" but a greater look at the history of professionalism as it relates to hockey would be good. The amateurism rules started to relax upon the retirement of Avery Brundage, he is turning over in his grave at what the Olympics have become. I will be making comments later on regarding references but I wanted to say that you're going to need more books, and a section on the history of professionalism in Olympic hockey might be a good place to add some book references. Here's a good source that I've used for other articles, [5]. H1nkles (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I do think a section would be helpful, but my concern is that debates about professionalism have been spread out over so long and some of the incidents mentioned (ie. the American team in 1948, the Canadian withdrawal in the 70s) help to support the sections they are in. -- Scorpion0422 20:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I see your point, you would likely have to pull those references out of the history section and put them into a professionalism section. It is a shame that Canada was out for most of the 70's, that really was a detriment to the sport. I still think a separate section on professionalism debate is warranted. H1nkles (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 4 Rules part 2

I think my statements above address this question. The interplay between the IIHF and NHL rules is a bit cumbersome but I think a necessary part of the article. You do draw heavily from the NHL, are there any other hockey leagues that have influenced the IIHF? You want to be careful not only with it being too nation focused but also too North Americancentric (my own wording). Are there European professional leagues or Russian leagues, that operate more like the Olympic tournament or have influence IIHF rule changes?

Another addition would be to look at how the qualification rules changed after the 1948 debacle between the two American hockey teams that both claimed to be representing the U.S. This must have been addressed in some way. This could be discussed in your pre-1976 qualification rules paragraph.

This source, [6] would be a good one to help bolster credibility in this section. It goes over a case in front of the Court of Arbitration for Sport regarding eligibility to compete for a national team. It interprets the IIHF by-laws on this issue. Side bar - it relates to Evgeny Nabokov (and I'm a Sharks fan) so it's of particular interest. The link above does not give the final decision, pages were omitted, but this link [7] (see the top of p. 243) gives a synopsis of the decision (which it calls a landmark decision regarding player eligibility). H1nkles (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Question 5 Canada-centric?

I'm sorry my friend but this section is going to hurt. Feel free to disagree with what I'm about to say, as a non-Canadian, I feel it is very Canada focused, especially the first half of the history section. Here's why and what I would do about it:

  • Start by removing the names of the clubs that represented Canada. It's unnecessary detail that would fit in an article about Canadian Olympic hockey history but not here.
  • Second, you give the tournament outcomes from a Canadian perspective, "At the 1932 Winter Olympics, the Winnipeg Hockey Club won the gold medal, but became the first Canadian team to not win all their games." and, "The Canadian Toronto Granites became one of the dominant hockey teams in Olympic history. They outscored opponents 110–3, with Harry Watson scoring 36 of those, and won Canada's only medal of the Games."
  • Third, find more international photos, six out of the twelve photos are of Canadians or have a Canadian focus.
  • Fourth, the debate about whether Canada should have won a bronze at the 1964 World Championships is not topical to this article, and provides more fodder for those who feel the article is too focused on Canada. I would rewrite the entire 1964 Innsbruck entry. This quote really makes the article look Canadian focused, "The 1964 Games also marked a turning point in Canadian Olympic hockey history." If this were an article about Canadian Olympic hockey history then it would matter. No other Olympic year explains why a team didn't do well, "...but Canada, represented by a national team rather than a club..." I would then cut everything after, "However, at the time the Olympics...." I know that hurts but it would make the paragraph much more international.
  • Another example of Canada-centric writing is, "The first open World Championship was held in 1977 in Vienna, Austria and saw Canada return with a team largely consisting of active NHL players" What about other countries, did they return with teams comprised largely of active NHL players?
  • Sorry but the lucky loonie story again compounds the problem. If a lot is cut out of the earlier portions of the article, then this could be left in as a nice side bar, but if not then it again is more ammunition to fail the article on NPOV grounds.

No question Canada plays a central role in Olympic hockey history and should be mentioned heavily in an article about the same, but as it currently stands you may have some trouble with NPOV issues. I would take a hard look especially at the early parts of the history section. You do address other powerhouses, like the Soviets, but it's not the same as the Canadian references, especially when it comes to secondary (more obscure) information such as the names of the Canadian clubs that played in the early Olympics, the 1964 World Championship controversy and the Lucky Loonie story. H1nkles (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, this is all nice and very constructive but should you not continue this discussion at the article's talkpage? --Tone 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'll copy what has been done and place it there. My apologies. H1nkles (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that I'm not the only one with opinions on this article, if others would like to weigh in on the article please go to the article's talk page. If there are opinions on the structure of this article I think here is the best place to discuss it as consensus will be important going forward. As stated previously, if this article passes it will become the template/precedent for all "[Sport] at the Olympic Games" articles going forward. I know that more opinions on the subject of structure and what should be covered will only help to make the article better. H1nkles (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey

I have nominated List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey for featured list removal here. I think the names had to be checked. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid - advertisement

I just marked Infrastructure of the Rio de Janeiro 2016 Olympic bid for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. The article reads like ad copy, and it's all from one editor. ("Security and disaster-related risks for the event will be mitigated by the implementation of a comprehensive, yet unobtrusive and welcoming, security operation.") What's thinking on this? Flush as an ad, or try to fix the article? --John Nagle (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Besides, it is enough to include this content in the bid article. No need for forking. --Tone 12:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
After discussing with Tone, the article was recreated. Please, see User talk:Tone. Felipe ( talk ) 16:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1988 Winter Olympics medals

Resolute was kind enough to get an image of the medals from the 1988 games on display in Calgary. The set on the far left is the normal medal. Resolute told me: "The middle set shows curling and aerial skiing on the face, so those would be what the participants in the demonstration sports got, imo. The third set shows what appears to be braille on the front, but the 1988 Paralympics were held in Austria that year. If I remember correctly though, Calgary did featured some events for disabled athletes as demonstration sports. Perhaps that is the third set?"

So does anyone know what the other medals might be? Also, would someone be able to split up the image so that the various images can go in various places? Thanks, Scorpion0422 20:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Olympic bids

I would like to propose a change in the title of Olympic bid-related articles. Moving from CITY-YEAR-Olympic bid (London 2012 Olympic bid) to CITY-bid for the-YEAR-SEASON-Olympics and Paralympics (London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics or Sochi bid for the 2014 Winter Olympics and Paralympics). Showing the season and the Paralympic bid. Felipe ( talk ) 00:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the reasoning to show the season and give a nod to the Paralympics? Personally it seems as though the title is a bit long and cumbersome. I think you could redirect the paralympic bid to the olympic bid perhaps? That way someone looking specifically for the paralympic bid article wouldn't come up empty. I can see where adding the season would be help specify the title a bit. What would be the ramifications of moving all the bid articles to a new naming format? How many articles are we talking about? H1nkles (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is the reasoning. It is an option, but I suggest to include "Paralympics" in the title. We talking about 20 articles and possible 50 redirects. Felipe ( talk ) 02:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind giving the season, but adding Paralympics is much too clunky. In my perception/opinion, cities are trying harder for the Olympics and the Paralympics come along with it, so the title would just be way too long to have both. I have no problem with the naming system now. Reywas92Talk 00:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I also think that mentioning Paralympic is redundant since they come along. Either of the two proposed wording is ok otherwise, maybe CITY-bid for the-YEAR-SEASON-Olympics is a bit clearer. --Tone 16:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
What about CITY-bid for the-YEAR-Olympics and Paralympics? It's just another idea. DeMoN2009 16:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Since when has it ever been called a "Paralympic bid" by the press. We should be using common names. I personally think the current one is fine, but could see how omitting the season could be slightly ambiguous so that alternative would also be fine. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 16:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, we could create specific articles for Paralympic bids. Felipe ( talk ) 16:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? Paralympics come together with Olympics and the infrastructure is more or less the same. No need to complicate here. --Tone 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Thinking better, that is not a good idea. About infrastructure, I only create a specifc article to reduce the size of Rio de Janeiro bid article and meet the quality standards. Felipe ( talk ) 22:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Vote

I think a good idea to open a vote with the suggestions. Felipe ( talk ) 02:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

CITY-YEAR-Olympic bid
London 2012 Olympic bid
Vancouver 2010 Olympic bid
CITY-bid for the-YEAR-SEASON-Olympics and Paralympics
London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics and Paralympics
Vancouver bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympics
CITY-bid for the-YEAR-SEASON-Olympics
London bid for the 2012 Summer Olympics
Vancouver bid for the 2010 Winter Olympics
CITY-bid for the-YEAR-Olympics and Paralympics
London bid for the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics
Vancouver bid for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics

Result

Can we declare CITY-bid for the-YEAR-SEASON-Olympics, the winning option? Felipe ( talk ) 17:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I think it should mention Paralympics in the title, I accept that CITY-bid for the-YEAR-SEASON-Olympics is the winner. DeMoN2009 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I also think that we should mention Paralympics the title, but we making progress putting the Season. Felipe ( talk ) 17:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Well, it is over. Let's go to work. (Redirects, redirects and more redirects...) Felipe ( talk ) 17:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Main work done (titles has changed). Now we need to remove the links that end in the old titles. Felipe ( talk ) 18:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Universiade

Is there any reason why these article should be tagged with the WPOlympics banner? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. DeMoN2009 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New list (Yay!)

Continuing with my recent Olympic hockey kick, List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada.

I'd like to take it to FLC in the next few days, but there are some problems. The lead kind of lacks focus and I ran into some problems with the 1948 team because the IOC database includes all of the players from that team (even the five reserve players who didn't play) as medal winners but sports-reference and a book I'm using do not include the reserves amongst the medal winners. (To complicate matters, the IOC database doesn't include the reserve players on the 1936 team). Anyway, all feedback and opinions are more than welcome. I have no plans of doing this for every Olympic team. This was very time-consuming and I doubt I'd easily be able to find a book with complete roster information about any other team. It should be noted that I was originally going to include the women's teams, but I decided against it for now. I think it works best with just the mens team. -- Scorpion0422 17:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably leave out the medals for the reserves who didn't play and justify your choice on the talk page/in notes. Given the scope I'd recommend a move to List of men's Olympic ice hockey players for Canada. I'm unsure of whether that men's might be capitalised but I'd err on the side of caution. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh right, forgot about that. The move is done. -- Scorpion0422 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On that note, should the page be renamed to something along the lines of "List of Canada Olympic men's ice hockey players"? -- Scorpion0422 18:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say you should rename it to specify men since there are a few Canadian women's teams. Perhaps something like, "List of Olympic men's ice hockey players from Canada." That flows a little better than your suggestion I think. "Men's" could go before or after "Olympic" not sure which is better. H1nkles (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I had meant to name it "men's", I just forgot to do that when I was moving it. The problem with saying "from Canada" is that some may assume it means all players born in Canada who have played in the tournament, not just players for Canada. (ie. Brett Hull) An example is List of Germany international footballers. (maybe I should throw the women's list in there, just for simplicity...) -- Scorpion0422 19:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
That seems like a decent solution if it's not too much work. I think for Canada is fine. The title is quite convoluted because the list's scope is so restricted. I don't think that's a problem;the title will always be a bit unwieldy. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
On the two points. 1) Add the women if there aren't too many, I'll leave that to your discretion as you should know a thing or two about lists by now. 2) I've never seen the style before, but is there a reason not to use List of Canadian Olympic ice hockey players? Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 19:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not really the length that caused me to not include the women's team, it's more because it will be a huge pain to find statistics. At least with the men's team I could use the bio pages at several reliable websites, I'm not aware of any such sites that also have complete stats for women. I'll see what I can do. -- Scorpion0422 19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I need a source for statistics for the women's players at the 1998 Olympics. (I have 2002 and 2006 done). The closest I can find is a SI/CNN source but it's missing several important things, namely goalies, games played and 1/4 of the players. Hockey Canada is also drawing up blanks (I can find full stats for the 1998 4 nations cup and 1998 World Championships, but not the 1998 Winter Olympics... Go figure). If anyone can help me out (all I need is the source and/or info, I can do the table myself), I would greatly appreciate it. -- Scorpion0422 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages 182–186 of the official report have some but not all of this data, including rosters for all six teams. Inexplicably, it only shows stats for the two medal games, but nothing from the round-robin games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I may have to turn to a book, but that will take a few days. Do you have any suggestions for the 1948 reserve players issue? -- Scorpion0422 22:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The 1948 official report (in French) has a list of participants for each nation, and also lists Brooks, Forbes, Gilpin, King, and Leichnitz. Since the official report and the IOC database match, I agree with what you've done to list them but in a different section with footnotes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Update: The women have been added and the page has been moved back to List of Olympic ice hockey players for Canada. -- Scorpion0422 15:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder wondering if I should split this page into lists for the men's and women's teams and I need opinions. kind of split on the issue, because having it all in one page is useful since both are for the same sport at the Olympics. However, the two are different disciplines with completely different rosters and no interlap. The List of Toronto Maple Leafs players doesn't include a list of Toronto Marlies players (in fact, I think you could make a better case for combining those two than these two). Because it's two seperate events the text really reflects that and jumps back and forth between them (especially in the the lead, you can tell that the summary of the women's event was just thrown in) and having seperate pages would allow both to have the proper attention they deserve. -- Scorpion0422 23:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Vote on date autoformatting and linking

People may be interested to know that the Vote on date autoformatting and linking is now open. All users are invited to participate. Lightmouse (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:31, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to give a link when using |display=none.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Splitting US at 2008 Olympics article

I have a proposal for splitting this overly long article here. I know there's been opposition against making subarticles before but I think to accurately reflect the topic of United States at the 2008 Olympics then this simply must be done. I believe the majority of people wouldn't be satisfied with such in-depth information on preliminary results, especially on events such as archery where the US best is an exciting quarterfinal and 9th place finish! I'd appreciate any more suggestions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I have left comments on the article's talk page regarding this post. H1nkles (talk) 20:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Host city table at Olympic Games article

I am addressing issues put forth in the recent FAC review of the Olympic Games article. One suggestion was to remove the host cities table and replace it with prose. I'm not sure about this, though I see the merit as there is a List of Olympic Games host cities already. I'd like to get community input on this before I make a decision. I really like the table for whatever that's worth. If you would like to read the specific recommendation please go here [8] and scroll to near the bottom of the page. Thanks for your time. H1nkles (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the host cities table should definitely be in the Olympic Games article. In fact, it would probably be best to merge List of Olympic Games host cities back into that main article. I'm not really sure what kind of prose you can replace a table with and still be to the same effect. FAs should be able to be stand-alone articles, so the list of host cities must be in that main article, not in a sub-list. Reywas92Talk 16:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Clearly the host cities need to be included in that main article and I think the table is the best way of showing all the information. Basement12 (T.C) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the input, I'll leave it as is currently and when I renominate it we'll see what other reviewers say. H1nkles (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Torino 2006 Official Report

Hi all, just wanted to mention for anyone that was interested, or was working on 2006 Winter Olympics articles that, much to my joy, the LA84 Foundation has released the Torino Official Report only about a week or so ago. It's good to have a more official place to reference results, and this can replace a lot of dead links to the Torino 2006 website in a number of articles. Edged (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's good news, I rely heavily on these reports when doing the older Games articles. I've found though that these reports tend to be very rosey paintings of the Games, and they can omit some of the controversies or negative aspects of that particular Games. It may also be considered a primary source and per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources you want to be careful of relying heavily on primary sourcing. They're so valuable though, so just be sure to add as many other sources to help balance the article. H1nkles (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Expanding athlete articles: "Focus on Athletes"

Just a heads up about this IAAF archive. These articles are just about perfect for sourcing if anyone wants to expand some athletes' articles. It's a broad selection (from the famous to the obscure) and even when not used for expansion they're a good read and a useful external link. I'll look to use some in the near future and I hope that others do too. The article on Liu Xiang is just one of many obvious possibilities for expansion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Olympic bid}}

Hello everyone! I am going to propose changes in the template {{Olympic bid}}, to provide more clarity, information and organization. I did tests without success, so I would like to present my ideas.

  1. Eliminate the Olympic colors, to make the infobox more neutral.
  2. Use collapsible boxes to shorten the infobox and avoid section breaks in the articles.
  3. Add a map with the location of the candidate city in question within its ANOC.
  4. Add the table of results of the election at the end of the infobox.

I would like to see comments, other suggestions and a prototypes later if someone can do. Regards; Felipe ( talk ) 19:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey João. I like the idea of adding a map for each bidding city infobox, and it's my guess it could be implemented without any opposition from the project. I'm also not against adding the election results table to the general bid page infobox version, but I'm not so sure as to what other members would think. As for the collapsible boxes, I ask you what sections would you think should be collapsed by default? If the results table is added, it should be collapsible. Finally, what colors do you believe would be more suited for the infobox headers? I tend to think this infobox is straight away associated to the Olympics because of the current colors, so I don't see why choosing more "neutral" colors would make the infobox better.
If you could make an effort to present a visual draft of your idea, that would help a lot. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the table of results in fact was to be included in the infoboxes of the specific articles of each application, and not on the overview page. The table on the overview page should be displayed in the article, may be more detailed. About collapsible boxes, I think all should be. The infobox will looks like this: Title-Logo-Collapsible boxes. Finally, I think we should use the colors of the new templates, without eliminating the Olympic colors, but reducing the use of them, like in {{Bids for the 2016 Summer Olympics}} or {{Association of National Olympic Committees}}.
Information like the bid team as President of the Organizing Committee, etc, could also be added. Cheers. Felipe ( talk ) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK. I don't see how those changes could cause any disruption. It's a question of testing them. If I have some time, I'll see what I can come up with. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey again. I spent most of yesterday reformulating this template. Apart from some code cleanup I introduced some changes that you guys should probably assess:
  1. Sections "Details", "Important dates"/"Previous games hosted", and "Decision" were given collapsible functions, enabling the infobox to become conditionally smaller, as to avoid article section breaks.
  2. Not so important, but I retitled some of these sections: "Previous games hosted" → "Previous hostings", "Decision" → "Election" (main bid article) and "Results" (bid-specific article). If you think the old titles were OK, I'm not against keeping them.
  3. The main parameters year and season were given defined parameters names year= and season=, instead of being compulsorily the first two inputed parameters. I adjusted all other instances along the template accordingly. I also renamed parameters for the deadlines and other dates, and introduced others, like "bid leader".
  4. I decided to maintain the colors because my tests to reduce their use lead to an even more complicated template code. I don't see why their use ought to be refrained, but if someone comes up with a simpler way...
  5. Finally, I'm still creating a template subpage, where all election ballots will be archived. These tables will be transcluded to the infobox's "Results"/"Decision" (whatever) section only for bid-specific articles. If the infobox is transcluded in a bid article for a specific city, I coded this so that this city will have its name and ballot results highlighted in these tables.
I was perhaps foolishly bold so, after ensuring that the tests worked, I began applying the changes to {{Olympic bid}} and adjusting all changes in the transcluded copies throughout linked articles. It was very late by then, so I didn't finish with all pages. Here is my edited version.
I noticed today that some newbie (User:Ffokoob) reverted all my changes, so I guess I should take this opportunity to present these changes to the project to get some feedback. Best regards. Parutakupiu (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It hasn't been a good week for template changes. I suspect that Ffokoob rolled back your changes because you left some of the pages that referenced the template in a bad state, although is would have been proper to state his/her reason. A suggestion: When making significant changes to template parameters, write the changes so that (at least temporarily) the template will accept both the old and new parameters. Then you can apply your change and then leisurely go back to upgrade the references. Once all the references are updated, you can remove the legacy support.
I tried looking at your changes by pasting updated copy of the source and a bid overview reference into the template sandbox, but the results seemed incomplete. Could you perhaps prepare a demo page? A page with side-by-side presentation of the templates filled in with real data would be ideal.
Although a bit late, I will offer some opinions. I think it would be better to eliminate the Olympic colors and replace them with colors typical of the other Olympic infoboxes. The blue link text on yellow background looks particularly bad. I also think the bold colors detract from the logos, which themselves typically use the Olympic colors. As for the collapsible sections, I think they are useful for unusually long item groups, but if the reason is mainly to prevent crossing article section boundaries I don't think it is necessary. Infoboxes routinely exceed the length of the lead section. -- Tcncv (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I tried to adjust the infobox changes to most of the important articles that transcluded it. I may have missed a few, so probably that's why the edits were reverted in all pages affected.
I could try to make a demo page, like you suggest, but I'm not so sure now that these alterations are that necessary. They don't fill any major gap that could exist with the infobox, although I think some other info could be added to it.
Still, I'm fancying a lot the idea of the ballot results table in the city bid article-transcluded infobox; I might show it on that demo just for people to have an idea. Thanks for yur input! Parutakupiu (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Your efforts and contributions are welcome and appreiated, even if they do get summarily rolled back. And FYI, the "[What links here" item in the toolbox on the left side of the screen is very useful to track down template references. -- Tcncv (talk) 03:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Can't win always. Yes, I'm aware of that option. That's what I used track down and fix all infobox instances. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

New navbox

Template:Summer Olympics was recently created, and is being used to replace Template:Olympic Games on all main Games pages. I think this looks terrible - check out the bottom of 1936 Summer Olympics#External links, for example, where we now have this oddball "pyramid" of a succession box (redundant, but that's another issue), followed by the new template, with its narrow width and different title colour, followed by the events navbox, which still has the same colours we use on all Olympic navboxes (and also does not force a narrow page width). The new navbox also forces the use of {{olympic box start}} and {{olympic box end}}. That technique was used by WP:FOOTY for some time, in the absence of a standardized way of navbox groups, but now that we have {{Navbox with collapsible groups}} (for example), that technique is no longer preferred (and there has even been a recent WP:FOOTY discussion to align their old templates with the current standardized system used most everywhere else on Wikipedia). What is the improved value of these new navboxes? I see none. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a standardization of the Olympic templates. Please, see International Olympic Committee#External links. Felipe ( talk ) 17:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the old format better, having all Olympic years in one template makes more sense. -- Scorpion0422 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec) There really ought to be a project consensus for this kind of bold move. I think it is a monumental step backwards to use the narrow boxes, bracketed by the "box start" and "box end" templates. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, navboxes are moving away from this style; why did you think it would be a good idea to introduce it for this project? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I also prefer the old format. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I would also say that we already have "standardized" Olympic navigation boxes. They've been consistent, and stable, for a long time now. Is there any problem that needs fixing? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I apologize, but I was already doing this for some time with no complaints. Maybe we can create a new template that meets the views of all. Reegards; Felipe ( talk ) 17:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
What's wrong with {{Olympic Games}} as it is? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It is simply ugly. Felipe ( talk ) 18:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I significantly prefer the original style as well. Not only is is the standard full width, it includes all Olympics. I see absolutely no reason why the orignal template should be split into summer and winter. People do want to be able to jump to both. I also think it is completely pointless to include dates up to 2052, even if grayed out. Reywas92Talk 18:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Now I see the flaws of the new template. But I do not think that the original template is perfect. I propose here the creation of a new standard of Olympic templates, which include infoboxes, navboxes, sidebars, etc. Cleaner and clearer templates, more functional and more detailed. Templates with the "Olympic style". Felipe ( talk ) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok, and this is certainly the place to discuss proposed changes. First, what is ugly about {{Olympic Games}}? Next, I will certainly agree that {{Olympics bids}} is gaudy and ugly and the aesthetics of your replacement {{Bids for the Summer Olympics}} are improved, but I think the standard style should still be used for that. What else do you think needs to be changed? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
On {{Olympic Games}} I do not like the color, the gibberish, the parenthesis and the misalignment. Well, I will prepare a report with prototypes to show changes in the templates, and then open an official discussion. For now, if you want, could revert my edits. Felipe ( talk ) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer the old box. (1) It links the winter games, new style does not. (2) It is fixed width and only uses about half the available width of my window, and is thus uneccessarily high. The old box was full width, which is consistent with other bottom boxes. (3) It includes dates way too far into the future. And why break it into multiple templates? -- Tcncv (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to change things if they don't need changing! Go with {{Olympic Games}}, because that looks better. OnHoliday 07:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Without a doubt the old box is better. The only advantage the new one has is that the years are lined up as far as I can tell; and this is only because the 1906 Intercalated Games have been left off (they appear as (1906) on Template:Olympic Games). I also agree with Andrwsc; we already had a standard style for Olympics nav boxes just look at how they were all styled at the bottom of Beijing 2008. Basement12 (T.C) 10:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep the old box. It might not be beautiful, but it works and it matches everything else. Jared (t)  20:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize, I made wrong changes. Next week I will present a new project for the Olympic templates and we will discuss it. Keep the old box. Regards; Felipe ( talk ) 21:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

So is consensus to roll back for now? -- Tcncv (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it is. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just come around this issue during the current FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race/archive1. Can a list of sport results be copyrighted and if it is, how to address the fact that those appear in basically all event articles? Thanks. --Tone 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't believe sports results were subject to copyright but who knows. If they are then there is an immense swath of material subject to deletion. However, I myself would presume that such results are not possible to copyright. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
That's crap. You can't copyright facts or data. The BOCOG claims copyright to the website in general, not the results. There is absolutely no reason why you cannot include that information in the article, and it's BS to say it needs a fair use rational. Just cite your sources as you are. Reywas92Talk 22:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
You can. If you look at the Barclays Premier League, their fixtures and league table did have a copyright on them, but thanks to a lot of angry people who couldn't use it for Websites/Fan sites/Wikipedia, they changed it. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the things were copyrighted, as it does seem a simple way to make money. OnHoliday 07:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
They would not have been able to copyright the data. Their presentation of the table and schedule likely had creative elements that could have been copyrighted. They may have claimed copyright to everything. But the actual data (A beat B by a score of 3 to 1, C will play D next week) and any logical aggregation of that data would not have been subject to copyright. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to the other posting of this: Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Can_sport_results_be_copyrighted? Reywas92Talk 19:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New category to the structure?

It is currently possible to browse all Olympic competitors for $COUNTRY and all Olympic competitors for $SPORT AT GAMES. It is not, however, possible to see all Olympic competitors for $COUNTRY AT GAMES or all Olympic competitors for $COUNTRY IN SPORT AT GAMES. I think the second one might be overkill in terms of the smaller sports, but I think it would be very useful to have a category to see all Olympic competitors for $COUNTRY AT GAMES. I know this would add a lot of categories to the structure, but this would be very useful, especially for the pre-2004 Olympics, when the $COUNTRY AT GAMES articles are mostly stubs. 141.151.145.252 (talk) 01:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we had categories like that at one point, but which were deleted. I think they would be good categories to have. (As a side note, everything up to 1920 has full results for all $COUNTRY AT GAMES articles, if not much in the way of prose, at this point--I swear, I'm slowly getting to it!) -- Jonel (Speak to me) 02:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Olympic templates

Here are the examples that were promised, but without the report, in which I would detail the functions and qualities. I have not time, so I decided to present the prototypes to you make your own conclusions. Regards; Felipe ( talk ) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Games of the
XXX Olympiad
Logo of Olympic Games (not displayed)
e.g. File:London Olympics 2012 logo.svg
Test
test
test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Olympic rings
Part of a series on:
2008 Summer Olympics

 

IOC · COC · SF&OCHK · BOCOG

Tables

Theme (Weighting)Rio de Janeiro

 
Government support, legal issues and public opinion (2)
- Government support & commitment
- Olympic Charter & legal aspects
- Public opinion
General infrastructure (5)
- Existing transport infrastructure
- Planned and additional transport infrastructure
- Airport
- IBC/MPC
Sports venues (4)
- Existing venues
- Planned and additional venues
- Sports concept & legacy
Olympic Village(s) (3)
- Location
- Concept
- Legacy
Environmental conditions and impact (2)
- Conditions
- Impact
Accommodation (5)
- Concept
Transport concept (3)
- Distances and travel times
- Transport organisation and traffic management
Safety and security (3)
Experience from past sports events (2)
- Number of sports events organised
- Quality
Finance (3)
Overall project and legacy (3)

MinimumMaximumAverage

7.3
7.0
8.0
—
5.3
5.0
7.0
5.0
6.0
5.8
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
5.6
5.0
6.0
5.5
5.0
5.5
5.0
6.0
4.6
6.6
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.5

8.8
9.0
9.0
—
7.2
7.0
9.0
7.5
8.0
7.4
7.5
8.0
8.0
7.7
8.0
8.0
9.0
7.6
7.0
8.0
6.4
7.0
7.5
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.9
8.5
7.0
7.7
8.0

8.0
8.0
8.5
7.7
6.2
6.0
8.0
6.2
7.0
6.6
6.7
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
8.5
6.6
6.0
7.0
5.9
6.0
6.5
6.0
7.0
5.8
7.2
7.7
6.5
6.8
6.7

5.87.56.4
Average score
Surely you would just have to add another column in to do that? OnHoliday 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
1896 | 1900 | 1904 | 1908 | 1912 | 1920 | 1924 | 1928 | 1932 | 1936 | 1948 | 1952 | 1956 | 1960 | 1964
1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 | 2000 | 2004 | 2008 | 2012 | 2016 | 2020 | 2024
1896 | 1900 | 1904 | 1908 | 1912 | 1920 | 1924 | 1928 | 1932 | 1936 | 1948 | 1952 | 1956 | 1960 | 1964
1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1994 | 1998 | 2002 | 2006 | 2010 | 2014 | 2018 | 2022
Debuting: Marshall Islands • Montenegro • Tuvalu | Absence: Brunei

Algeria • Angola • Benin • Botswana • Burkina Faso • Burundi • Cameroon • Cape Verde • Central African Republic • Chad • Comoros • Congo • DR Congo • Côte d'Ivoire • Djibouti • Egypt • Equatorial Guinea • Eritrea • Ethiopia • Gabon • Gambia • Ghana • Guinea • Guinea‑Bissau • Kenya • Lesotho • Liberia • Libya • Madagascar • Malawi • Mali • Mauritania • Mauritius • Morocco • Mozambique • Namibia • Niger • Nigeria • Rwanda • São Tomé‑Príncipe • Senegal • Seychelles • Sierra Leone • Somalia • South Africa • Sudan • Swaziland • Tanzania • Togo • Tunisia • Uganda • Zambia • Zimbabwe

Afghanistan • Bahrain • Bangladesh • Bhutan • Cambodia • China • Hong Kong • India • Indonesia • Iran • Iraq • Japan • Jordan • Kazakhstan • North Korea • South Korea • Kuwait • Kyrgyzstan • Laos • Lebanon • Malaysia • Maldives • Mongolia • Myanmar • Nepal • Oman • Pakistan • Palestine • Philippines • Qatar • Saudi Arabia • Singapore • Sri Lanka • Syria • Chinese Taipei • Tajikistan • Thailand • Timor‑Leste • Turkmenistan • United Arab Emirates • Uzbekistan • Vietnam • Yemen

Albania • Andorra • Armenia • Austria • Azerbaijan • Belarus • Belgium • Bosnia‑Herzegovina • Bulgaria • Croatia • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • FYR Macedonia • France • Georgia • Germany • Great Britain • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Israel  • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Moldova • Monaco • Montenegro • Netherlands • Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Russia • San Marino • Serbia • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • Ukraine

  • These look awesome; I just think the reason it was opposed before is that it was too big a change. I think the general consensus is that we want full-width templates. Specific comments: Although they are gray, I think it's inappropriate to have years for nonexistent winter olympics. Also, I liked the other links that were included: sports, symbols, etc. And I'm not sure why the headers are off-center. The NOC table looks great and is significantly better, but it's very long because it's narrower and it has the map. Reywas92Talk 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I presume the top box is a suggested update to {{Olympic Games}}. If so, then I see no compelling reason to hide the rows for access to individual Games articles (especially when the links to the lesser-importance articles for 1916, 1940, 1944, and 1906 are always visible. Also, why impose a narrower that necessary box width? Per Wikipedia:Navigation templates, The width of footer boxes should be 100% unless the convention for that type of article is otherwise. It looks inconsistent if multiple boxes in the same article have varying widths. Lastly, showing greyout out years for Winter Games of 1896–1920 is just strange. As for the suggested update to {{NOCin2008SummerOlympics}}, I would also say that the artificially constrained width is not necessary and all Olympic navboxes must be 100%. I like the idea of the map to highlight the grouping by five continental associations (and the explicit link to each of them in the group titles). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    A follow-up thought I had is that the design for the "NOCinYearSummerOlympics" navboxes may not be scalable for all Games. For example, the "Debuting" and "Absence" NOCs look good with a small number of each, but what about early Games (during the large growth periods) or boycott Games? Those sections would be unmanageable. Also, the use of the continental associations is currently a helpful way to explain the grouping of countries, but those associations did not exist until recently (EOC: 1968, OCA: 1982, etc.) so using those links on {{NOCin1952SummerOlympics}} (for example) would be inaccurate and anachronistic. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • They're all looking pretty good to me. Excellent work so far. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The width is the major issue for me as well. I would also suggest that links to individual Summer/Winter Games articles aren't hidden and the links to cancelled/Intercalated Games are placed below them. Highlighting new participants is a nice idea but is there any reason for the first letters in absence/debuting etc being in bold, looks a bit odd to me. I also like the idea of a colour coded map but the one currently shown isn't really relevant as it shows 2016 candidate cities is there a more suitable one that you meant to use instead? Basement12 (T.C) 23:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Looks good. The lighter background has better contrast with the text, and the small colored tabs add a nice signature look for the project, without the gaudiness of the {{Olympic bid}} template. Ditto the above comments on 100% width and leaving the year/game navigation open by default. -- Tcncv (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I like the general look but I also bear the opinion that it should be full width. All in all, very interesting suggestions, João! Parutakupiu (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Results

Here are examples with the suggested changes. And we need discussion about the templates {{Olympic box start}} and {{Olympic box end}}.Felipe ( talk ) 23:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Olympic rings
Part of a series on:
2008 Summer Olympics

 

IOC · COC · SF&OCHK · BOCOG
Theme (Weighting)Rio de JaneiroChicagoMadridTokyo

 
Government support, legal issues and public opinion (2)
- Government support & commitment
- Olympic Charter & legal aspects
- Public opinion
General infrastructure (5)
- Existing transport infrastructure
- Planned and additional transport infrastructure
- Airport
- IBC/MPC
Sports venues (4)
- Existing venues
- Planned and additional venues
- Sports concept & legacy
Olympic Village(s) (3)
- Location
- Concept
- Legacy
Environmental conditions and impact (2)
- Conditions
- Impact
Accommodation (5)
- Concept
Transport concept (3)
- Distances and travel times
- Transport organisation and traffic management
Safety and security (3)
Experience from past sports events (2)
- Number of sports events organised
- Quality
Finance (3)
Overall project and legacy (3)

MinimumMaximumAverage

7.3
7.0
8.0
—
5.3
5.0
7.0
5.0
6.0
5.8
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
5.6
5.0
6.0
5.5
5.0
5.5
5.0
6.0
4.6
6.6
7.0
6.0
6.0
5.5

8.8
9.0
9.0
—
7.2
7.0
9.0
7.5
8.0
7.4
7.5
8.0
8.0
7.7
8.0
8.0
9.0
7.6
7.0
8.0
6.4
7.0
7.5
7.0
8.0
7.0
7.9
8.5
7.0
7.7
8.0

8.0
8.0
8.5
7.7
6.2
6.0
8.0
6.2
7.0
6.6
6.7
7.2
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
8.5
6.6
6.0
7.0
5.9
6.0
6.5
6.0
7.0
5.8
7.2
7.7
6.5
6.8
6.7

5.87.56.4

 
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.4
6.4
7.0
6.0
9.0
8.0
6.5
6.7
6.5
7.0
7.8
8.5
7.5
8.5
7.0
7.0
7.0
9.6
8.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
7.6
6.7
6.5
7.0
7.2
6.5

 
8.2
8.2
8.5
9.0
8.4
8.5
9.0
9.0
8.5
8.3
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.0
8.5
8.0
9.0
8.1
7.5
8.5
8.3
8.0
8.5
8.5
8.5
7.5
7.7
8.5
6.5
7.5
8.5

 
7.7
8.0
8.5
9.0
8.2
8.7
8.5
9.0
7.2
7.8
7.7
8.0
8.0
8.2
9.0
8.0
8.7
8.2
7.7
8.5
9.8
9.0
8.0
8.5
7.5
8.4
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.7
8.0

Average scores7.08.18.3
Debuting: Kiribati • Timor-Leste | Absence: None

Algeria • Angola • Benin • Botswana • Burkina Faso • Burundi • Cameroon • Cape Verde • Central African Republic • Chad • Comoros • Congo • DR Congo • Côte d'Ivoire • Djibouti • Egypt • Equatorial Guinea • Eritrea • Ethiopia • Gabon • Gambia • Ghana • Guinea • Guinea‑Bissau • Kenya • Lesotho • Liberia • Libya • Madagascar • Malawi • Mali • Mauritania • Mauritius • Morocco • Mozambique • Namibia • Niger • Nigeria • Rwanda • São Tomé‑Príncipe • Senegal • Seychelles • Sierra Leone • Somalia • South Africa • Sudan • Swaziland • Tanzania • Togo • Tunisia • Uganda • Zambia • Zimbabwe

Afghanistan • Bahrain • Bangladesh • Bhutan • Brunei • Cambodia • China • Chinese Taipei • Hong Kong, China • India • Indonesia • Iran • Iraq • Japan • Jordan • Kazakhstan • North Korea • South Korea • Kuwait • Kyrgyzstan • Laos • Lebanon • Malaysia • Maldives • Mongolia • Myanmar • Nepal • Oman • Pakistan • Palestine • Philippines • Qatar • Saudi Arabia • Singapore • Sri Lanka • Syria • Tajikistan • Thailand • Timor‑Leste • Turkmenistan • United Arab Emirates • Uzbekistan • Vietnam • Yemen

Albania • Andorra • Armenia • Austria • Azerbaijan • Belarus • Belgium • Bosnia‑Herzegovina • Bulgaria • Croatia • Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • FYR Macedonia • France • Georgia • Germany • Great Britain • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Israel • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Malta • Moldova • Monaco • Netherlands • Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Russia • San Marino • Serbia‑Montenegro • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • Ukraine

Debuting: Angola • Botswana • Cyprus • Jordan • Laos • Mozambique • Seychelles | Absence: 1980 Summer Olympics boycott

Algeria • Angola • Benin • Botswana • Cameroon • Congo • Ethiopia • Guinea • Lesotho • Liberia • Libya • Madagascar • Mali • Mozambique • Nigeria • Sierra Leone • Senegal • Seychelles • Tanzania • Uganda • Zambia • Zimbabwe

Afghanistan • Burma • India • Iraq • Jordan • North Korea • Kuwait • Laos • Lebanon • Mongolia • Nepal • Sri Lanka • Syria • Vietnam

Andorra • Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Cyprus • Czechoslovakia • Denmark • Finland • France • East Germany • Great Britain • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Luxembourg • Malta • Netherlands • Poland • Portugal • Romania • San Marino • Soviet Union • Spain • Sweden • Switzerland • Yugoslavia

  • Still has individual Summer and Winter Games article links hidden and the bolded letters...Basement12 (T.C) 12:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What's up to the bid schedule table? Unlike the rest, I really don't like that one. It has 570 circles on it, about half of which have our little pictograms. I significantly prefer the way we do that table for schedules. There should definitely be the names of the sports written out. Reywas92Talk 02:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I usually don't comment on table/nav box discussions (primarily because I can't really offer an alternative) but on this one I will weigh in. There is a flow and consistency to all of the proposed tables and nav boxes except the "schedule table". So I must agree with Reywas92 on this one. Way too much unused space. I think it will make the articles it is in, too long and unweildy, specifically the amount of edit space it requires. I'm concerned about how it will impact the size of the article, from a load-time perspective. I don't know what impact the pictograms have on the article size but it should be considered when deciding whether to use this table format. Finally, each pictogram links to an article, I like this, but currently every pictogram for a given sport links to the same article. Per WP:LINK this is overkill (IMO). H1nkles (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Any suggestions on how will we standardize the schedule table? Felipe ( talk ) 17:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I like how it's done currently at 2008 Summer Olympics#Calandar. I think most or all Games articles already use this style. I see this table as independent from Navboxes/Infoboxes; there is no need to fix this when it isn't broken. You may have another idea, but the style of this does not need to be identical to the others. The current layout clearly has the names of sports, pictograms, dates, obvious color coding, and links to the relevant articles. All of your other suggestions are excellent, though. Reywas92Talk 23:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Before making my comments above I checked the link provided by Reywas92 for reference. While it certainly isn't as pretty as your suggestion, it is functional and it does link to each individual event. I agree that your other suggestions clearly are a step up from the current templates and navboxes though and I commend you on the work your doing. Keep it up. H1nkles (talk) 02:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the current table is very functional, but it gets out of the standardization. The idea is to use the navbox template to provide a similar visual style to all tables, avoiding the use of class="wikitable". Cheers; Felipe ( talk ) 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_10&oldid=1142517150"