Talk:All-time Commonwealth Games medal table

Medals

I'm not sure who came up with these figures but they are bizzare and wrong; just look how they contradict the 2002 Commonwealth Games page! Robdurbar 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

On the official Commonwealth Games site, they have given the medals won by Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia etc. to the successor states of Zambia & Zimbabwe. Given that decision of theirs, I think we should follow the Official Commonwealth Games protocol in regards to the Rhodesian medals when creating All-Time Medal Tallies for the Commonwealth Games. jkm 11:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; could still be explained with a note though? Robdurbar 13:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, will do, note is a good idea, I guess this relates to all the other tables I'm working on. Once they're finished the whole thing should be smoothed out nicely. jkm 01:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the OZ/NZ all-time totals don't reconcile with the figures on the country pages, see below Hugo999 (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

NZL medal tally has an error that needs fixing (more medals than any other team!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.131.211.75 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Malaysia is repeated in the table; pls merge. (No. 11 and 37) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.27.52 (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Progressive medal counts?

See here for the active discussion on whether the progressive medal counts should stay or go. → J@red  12:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree that totals for many countries here are wildly inaccurate. For example; Ceylon/Sri Lanka has, according to this page, won a total of 54 medals. Meanwhile, the offical Commonwealth Games Federation site clames that the nation has won only a total of 10 medals (see <http://www.thecgf.com/countries/tally.asp>).

Investigating this further, this pages states that Ceylon won a total of four medals at the 1962 CWGs (2 gold, 2 silver). Meanwhile, the Wiki page of the 1962 British Empire and Commonwealth Games states that Ceylon won no medals at these games, as the the CMG Federation website (see previous reference).

This is just one example of many errors just relating to one country. Who knows how many other countries are incorrect?

I suggest that accurate totals should be obtained via the Commonwealth Games Federation website at <http://www.thecgf.com/countries/tally.asp>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.148.96 (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I think that all these progressive medal tallies should be merged into this article. They are not ever going to expand, and for interested people it is easier to see all the information if it is in sections of this article.

I am also proposing to merge the individual medal counts with the article for the Games of that year (see Template:Commonwealth Games Medal Counts for the list). Again, they are not going to expand, and are mostly duplicated in the Games articles.

Finally, if all this does happen, then we may as well delete Template:Commonwealth Games Medal Counts. Kevin 04:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The merging, as suggested, has now been completed for the 1982 Commonwealth Games. Figaro 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I would maintain the individual ones and get rid of the progressive. I think the individual is a useful speerate link to maintain to be honest. Olympic Games medal counts are kept on seperate pages. --Robdurbar 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I undid the 1982 one as well. I hope that's not interpreted as being too agressive but I'd rather leave the situation as it is until there is a chance for the discussion to develop. --Robdurbar 08:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why the Games articles should have a cut down medals table. Many readers would be interested in seeing results outside the top ten. In most cases the list is only going from 10 to 20 or so entries. It follows then that we have duplicate information that really serves no purpose. Kevin 01:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess there isn't really an argument for keeping them. --Robdurbar 10:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for a bit more discussion yet, because the merge is a big job and I only want to do it if it's going to stay. Kevin 10:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've done all the progressive tables, and a bunch of other duplicates I found. Kevin 10:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I had not seen this until now, but the merger is absolutely ridiculous. Why are there separate pages for the medal counts for Olympic Games, but not Commonwealth Games? If they're already there, keep them. They didn't detract from the main article, since they were heavily inter-linked. Now, the main pages for the separate Games look like a string of results, without any reduction of the results to the salient points. Bastin 23:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the commonwealth games are of nowhere near the same level of importance as the Olympics. I think the only way that the merge could have been argued against (or a splitting now be justified) would be if the 'a reduction of the results to the salient points' actually existed on any of the pages. If someone were to write those then a split would be reasonable, I think --Robdurbar 09:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Previously, there were abbreviated medals tables, showing just the top ten teams. I didn't see anything wrong with that, nor has anyone explained how that was inadequate, particularly as it suited every other major sporting event similarly covered (Summer Olympics, Winter Olympics, 2004 Paralymics, etc).

I cited the Olympics only because the coverage of the Commonwealth Games is based upon the model of the Olympics Games' articles, yet this is a marked departure from that model. The original framework of the Olympics coverage was used to ensure that the 2006 Commonwealth Games were covered appropriately, and that the Commonwealth Games' coverage would not be woefully inadequate, as it was before Melbourne. The best way to improve the coverage of previous Games is to roll out the same model all the way back to 1930. One of the fundamental elements of that would be having separate articles for medals tables (if only for navigation from one Games' medals table to another).

Furthermore, if it is solely about size, a good argument can still be made. While it is true that the Summer Olympics are considerably larger than the Commonwealth Games, the Winter Olympics are smaller (Commonwealth Games are far larger by athletes, sports, disciplines, events, spectators, and television ratings in competing countries). Despite the relative sizes, the Winter Olympics medals tables have articles, and the (larger) Commonwealth Games don't. Bastin 10:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Former countries/Modern Countries

There has been discussion on whether medals won for a country in a previous name should be allocated to the modern name. Where the borders are contiguous I would argue that this should be.

For instance:

• Antigua and Antigua and Barbuda
• British Guiana and Guyana
• British Honduras and Belize
• Ceylon and Sri Lanka
• Gold Coast and Ghana
• Northern Rhodesia and Zambia
• Saint Vincent and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
• Southern Rhodesia and Zimbabwe
• Western Samoa and Samoa

However, Ireland, Irish Free State and Northern Ireland are not contiguous countries nor are the following:

• Aden and Federation of South Arabia (and Yemen if they ever take part)
• Malaya and Malaysia
• Rhodesia, Rhodesia and Nyasaland and Zimbabwe
• Tanganyika and Tanzania

PS: how about India prewar which included Pakistan and Bangladesh; my addition to someone else's comment above? (and Northern Ireland is contiguous with Irish Free State/Eire?) Hugo999 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Reconciliation of Australian and New Zealand Totals

Having prepared a table for each games for NZ, I think it is useful to keep the “running total” for each past games. I have copied the New Zealand totals for each Games with the idea of writing some early New Zealand at the xxx Games pages. Well NZ got 3 medals in 1934, shouldn’t take too long! SeeNew Zealand at the Commonwealth Games.

But the running total got by adding the totals for each games for New Zealand (124 gold, 168 silver & 238 bronze) is higher (by 1 gold & 4 bronze) than the running total given in the table for after 2006 (123 gold, 168 silver & 234 bronze). I think the difference occurs between 1978 & 1998, but as the running totals are not given for those years I cant say where. Has someone got a vast spreadsheet with every country included? The 2006 total for Australia on Australia at the Commonwealth Games als differs from the Australian running total here. Hugo999 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Australia have lost thier 5 commonwealth Games winning streak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.224.161 (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on All-time Commonwealth Games medal table. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723215731/http://www.commonwealthgames.com/ to http://www.commonwealthgames.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Who won first Gold, first silver and first bronze medal of cwg 2022

I want to know the first medal winners name of cwg 2022 27.63.18.108 (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Needs Correction for Sure

@J947 There is a discrepancies in data and I have verified the edits of Special:Contributions/131.72.222.129, and pre birmingham version is wrong! You should check the number of medals in individual page and calculate yourself before reverting. Sneha04 ^💬 07:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you. The source wasn't working for me (links were failing) so I assumed there was a complete table (it's pretty odd that there isn't!) and that recent edits were incorrect, piecemeal updates. Sorry about that, J947 † ^edits 03:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Discrepancies in medal tally

@SSSB Your edits have been reverted for misunderstanding the recent revisions and not co-operating with fellow editors. Check Individual pages of CWG games and calculate all previous page records and revisions. There have been multiple instances of vandalism and multiple counting by users, here is one revision [1] . Special:Contributions/131.72.222.129, User:J947 all have checked, verified and calculated it, see previous discussion for that. And stop reverting away Good faith edits with the same edit summary quoting "Partial updates are incorrect changes and will be reverted." We put our valuable time for counting the whole tally again and again not to get reverted with just another editor not willing to put time on verification. First check it then if you found anything wrong, discuss it with fellow editors and There will be a consensus then, where multiple editors will put time again and recount the revisions. Wikipedia is not a place of battleground, atleast an experienced editor must know that. If you continue to make edit war furthur you will be taken to ANI for such behaviour. Now don't act like You didn't get it. Sneha04 ^💬 19:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sneha04: it is your responsibility to make sure that the changes you implement are verifiable, not mine. It is your responsibilty to explain what you are doing in your edits, not mine. It is not my responsibilty to go on a wild goose chase to try and work out if your edits are correct. See WP:BURDEN.

If this edit was to correct the edit total prior to the games, then at the very least, you need to mention that in your edit summary, so I can see what you are tring to do. How am I supposed to "get it" if you haven't bothered to try to explain and expalin your edits to me. Because from where I am sitting it looks like you were making updates to selected countries, for selected events at the ongoing games.

So don't make this out to be my error, because it is yours.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) SSSB (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well Well Well, you don't want to put efforts, just come and revert away other's edits, no co-operation and then blame other for that their edit summary, with some random cherry picking policies which completely doesn't make any sense in this case.

Again, such a disappointing behaviour, well you are talking about edit summary? I have put enough to explain my edits! Special:Contributions/131.72.222.129 have done the change in Aus and Eng which I verified and it stand out to be completely correct but had not provided edit summary. I can't write edit summary on behalf on that editor, right? What my edit [2] was that of India, which was vandalised by User:Silverdragon3002 (revision shown on previous reply) even on the individual page got vandalised see, India at the 1978 Commonwealth Games [3] I mean I sense some big brain here with completely misleading edit summary that it is partial update, have a look at edit history of the page from next time before using the same summary!

Now, don't pose Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, I know what is WP:BURDEN which doesn't place a bit in this case! You are clearly disrupting Wikipedia to make random sense out of your words. As expected you acted like You didn't get it which reminds me of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. Check the Page history, check out what I did say to you before and again come to make your point. I have given an instance of disruption, and a lot are there. You choose the way of edit warring and I have started the talk page discussion following that so you don't need to have superiority complex that what is verifiable and not. If you have no time to go through page revisions, then you have not a single space to revert away Good faith edits, if you think it is a wild goose chase, then wikipedia is definitely not your place of leisure center.

How am I supposed to explain my edits in more clearer way?

And again, I have clearly mentioned "restored Pre Birmingham Verified Medal Tally", which rejects your words play with the same echolalia of "Partial update"!

Go on Individual Pages of CWG countries and see edit history, verify it. I can no way explain more than what I have done. You have no right to stand idle and then revert away all verified by several editors who put their time and hard words in this just not to encounter an editor like you. And again making random revert everytime without verifying it is definitely not a error it is a blunder! Sneha04 ^💬 04:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)