Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Parutakupiu (talk | contribs) at 01:08, 26 July 2009 (→New peer review section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Olympic Games Milan & Cortina 387 days left 2026 Winter Los Angeles 1276 days left 2028 Summer French Alps 1846 days left 2030 Winter Brisbane 2746 days left 2032 Summer

Athlete medal leaders tables

Examples of these Athlete medal leaders tables are in List of Olympic medalists in snowboarding and List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey. There are three ways we can rank these:

1. Ranking them by total medals, with a note. (the two articles above)

2. Ranking them by golds, with a note.

3. Any of the two above, without the "Rank" column. (List of Olympic medalists in badminton)

I was just wondering which way are we going to rank these. Though Scorpion0422 and I are the only ones to have nominated these Olympic medalists by sport lists for featured list promotion, I was hoping to get some more opinions. So, any comments? -- ] 01:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer consistency with the general idea of sorting by golds first; I don't really think we need a "rank" column. Just my opinion, not a huge deal as far as I'm concerned. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was actually going to ask Scorpion0422 personally instead of asking this whole WikiProject. Thought there would be more opinions, but it's was pretty obvious this subject is barely a deal. Hope Scorpion0422 can comment...o, and my preferred one would be the third option. -- ] 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the 3rd option is best, where the sorting options in each column would allow the reader to rank athletes by whichever criteria he/she feels like. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see the problem mostly as being one of selection criteria, unless we're going to put every medal winner in the table. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against losing the rankings, but it does help sorting out athletes who have won the same total number of medals. However, if the ranking column remains, we should rank by total. -- Scorpion 03:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And why is that? The IOC ranks countries by gold... -- ] 06:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

True, but when I compile these lists, the number of included athletes is based on the number of medals, rather than just the "top 10" (because there are usually ties). For example, with List of Olympic medalists in short track speed skating, I included every athlete with three or more golds or four or more total medals, which gave 12 athletes. If you ranked by gold (and used ranking numbers), then there would be obvious jumps. Li Jiajun, who has not won a single gold, would certainly not be in the top 12 in terms of gold medals. However, if one ranks by total medals, there is much better progression because if you ranked by total (then gold, then silver, then bronze), those would be the top 12. -- Scorpion 16:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See, my thing is this: would we rather have Li Jiajun (0/2/3) or Annie Perreault (2/0/1 - and not on the current list)? If we were selecting countries for a top medal list, the 2/0/1 would be present before a 0/2/3 would. As it is, I think there is an obvious jump from those who have won 2 golds to those who have won 0 when the reader sorts by gold. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the official IOC fact sheet ranks the medalists by sport by total medals...now, I think we should rank them by total medals... -- ] 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you take a second look on that facsheet, besides presenting athletes that won most medals, it also has them ranked by each medal color, giving a completely different ranking. That is not a statement that the IOC does rank by total medals or not. I still believe we should drop the rank and let the reader decide that by making use of the sorting function. "Athlete medal leaders" could point to total medal leaders, but its sufficiently ambiguous to be interpreted as <choose any color> medal leaders. Parutakupiu (talk) 12:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm guessing consensus here is to remove the "Rank" column, and sort the tables by total medals? -- ] 05:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Good enough. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 00:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Finished removing the rank column, and sorting all by total. -- ] 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Women's road race

For those who have not noticed, this article was nominated in the past for FA, but failed to be promoted because there was no quorum, despite having reached a stage where (IMO) it became FA material. It's been nominated once again and is awaiting for more people to take a look at it and express their opinion. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This one's been FA'ed. Thanks, guys! Parutakupiu (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming practices: "FYR" Macedonia

In a centralised discussion that created a new naming guideline for Macedonia-related issues, now at WP:MOSMAC2, it was determined that the Republic of Macedonia should generally not be referred to as "former Yugoslav Republic of..." or "FYR ...", even in articles about organisations where such an appellation is officially used. This affects a lot of Olympics-related articles, where up to now "FYR Macedonia" has been used.

The discussion was advertised at Talk:FYR Macedonia at the Olympics, and we had some input from an active Wikiproject member, User:Andrwsc, who assured us that a change towards plain "Macedonia" would likely meet with consensus in this project too .

To implement the change, I would like to edit the template {{country_IOC_alias_MKD}}, which transcludes the country name into the various flag and infobox templates used in result tables etc., changing "FYR Macedonia" to "Macedonia". Please advise if there should be any objections, or technical complications I may have overlooked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You have my thumbs up. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great. I've gone ahead and made the change now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, looks like you've handled all the article renames and navbox changes as well! — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" -

-- Mr.Z-man 00:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics

I have nominated the article Rio de Janeiro bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics for Peer review. Is someone interested in review it? Regards; Felipe Menegaz 01:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Too many flags!

Hi. A discussion about cutting back on some of the flags in Olypmics related articles is taking place at Talk:2004_Summer_Olympics#Too_many_flags.21. Please contribute. Note that the suggestion is not to remove all flags, far from it, but to cut back on places where the number of flags is excessive and causing accessibility issues without any noticeable benefit, ie in the list of all participating countries/NOCs. GDallimore (Talk) 10:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Australia at the Winter Olympics FAR

I have nominated Australia at the Winter Olympics for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ideas needed on the article strucutre YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nations tables in some Olympic sport articles

Someone has proposed removing the nations tables from certain Sport at the Olympics articles, namely Swimming at the Summer Olympics and Gymnastics at the Summer Olympics. Thoughts? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The tables that list the number of participants from each country? I see no problem with them, and I think it's really good information. Reywas92 14:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got mixed feelings about these. I agree that they are useful, but for some sports, will be totally overwhelming for the article. Specifically, qualifying standards do not need to be met for entries in athletics and swimming, to allow even the smallest countries to have one or two participants per Games. Therefore, the tables on those pages would have a couple of hundred rows each (roughly duplicating the list of participating nations for that entire Games), with thousands of table cells to complete. So practically speaking, I'm not sure the benefit is worth the effort, and I also don't want to see those articles remain mostly sets of large tables with little room for prose text. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

New peer review section

Hey all. Lately, this project has seen many of its pages being recognized as worthy contributions to this online encyclopedia. I thought that it would be a good time to open our own review department. Who else besides us could be better indicated to review Olympics-related content? Of course, this does not imply that all articles on this topic would compulsorily have to pass through our own peer review. But I believe that we could address better the specificities of the theme than the general reviewing process would.

Also, I've created a multi-page header that will improve our navigation within the project pages. Hope these new tools will please you and help this project to grow even more. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)