Talk:Curling at the 2006 Winter Olympics

What's with the hammers? Tompw 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

They signify who is having the last stone in the first end. Should be clarified, maybe. Sam Vimes 22:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Women's before Men's?

I can't think of any reason the Women's section would be listed before the Men's section... Men's curling begins first (5 hours before women's) and is alphabetically in front of women's.

Does it really matter? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Ladies first" , probably a cultural preference inherited from manners/etiquette by the editor, no real big problem that I can see. --EliteArcher88 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Page Layout

Does anything think it would be easier to have a table of contents with seperate headings for each of the draws? Right now this page is quite confusing to read. Let me know if you agree of disagree, and if not, I will make the changes sometime tonight. Canuck89 00:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely better. Someone changed it to a standard table of contents a day or two ago and it was great! If you want to see "Women's Draw 6" you can just click. Now you have to scroll through all the other draws to find the one you want. I was going to revert it back to the standard table, but I figured that most people like the current arrangement. Can anyone explain why the standard TOC is unacceptable?
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 18, 2006, 02:36 (UTC)
  • The old TOC was too long. It was not "great" -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's try this, since there is obviously more than one person on each side of this issue, let's just have a vote and see which one is more popular. I'll start.

• Standard TOC — I prefer the standard TOC. I just went and looked at that version again, and I stand by my opinion.
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 18, 2006, 05:22 (UTC)

I've since changed it... it's not a standard ToC, but it has all the links a standard ToC has, in a nice compact format. Tompw 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Much better, Good compromise. Thanks for the contribution.— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 18, 2006, 19:43 (UTC)

That looks much better. Thanks! Canuck89 17:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stats site?

I'd like to help with updating stats, but I can't find a good site for all the stats needed for the Standings box. NBC has everything except the Ends won/ends lost and blank ends. I suppose it could be done the old fashioned way with a calculator, but it'd be a lot easier if anyone knew of a site out there stats could be pulled from.

Also, the shot percentage is that of the whole team, not just the skip, correct? -DMurphy 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to get out the old calculator. It's not that difficult, really. The %'s are of course for the whole team. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on the Torino 2006 site[1], after each game the percentages are available on the results page for the individual curlers and team. - William McDuff 01:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Curlingzone.com will have a lot of different stats too. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As of a few minutes ago, the stats were a mess. If you totaled up the "Points for" and "Points against" columns, for either the women's or the men's competition, you'd find that they don't match up. The Principle of Conservation of Sporting Scores would require that the numbers match. (Or, at least, simple math would require it.) I pulled all the match results into an Excel Sheet, calculated the totals, and plugged them into the article. (Just did the Women's, and now I'm going to do the Men's.) If I'm missing anything, I trust a more knowledgable editor will fix my work.--RattBoy 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually fixed up the men's numbers with the NBC stats, and calculated the ends on my own. I didn't realize they were wrong. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Shot Percentage

I'm new to the sport, so please excuse me if this sounds dumb, but what does shot percentage mean? Is that (Times an Opponent's Non-House Guard Stone is Hit+ Times Stone Reaches House)/Total Throws? Karmafist 18:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For calculating %'s, each shot is worth four points. There are judges who determine how many points a shot gets, and the % is how many points a player gets out of a possible amount of points. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so who are the judges and what determines a 4,3,2 and a 1 shot? I've heard that Thirds are normally in charge of scoring, so do they decide? Karmafist 21:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The thirds decide how many points are scored at the end of an end, but the judges decide how many points one shot is worth (i.e., how well the shot is thrown based on what shot was called). Prayerfortheworld (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

At what time does a team give up?

Hello all! I was reading the results listed in the article and have the following query. How does a team decide when to give up? I can see that some teams give up even though they have 4 ends to go, etc. Is there a standard formula that most teams follow? Thanks. --Kiwi8 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No there's not. They give up when they feel they can't win. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw teams giving up when they trail by only 6 points with 4 ends to go. Is it really so hard to get 6 points in 4 ends? Why give up so easily?--Kiwi8 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, especially if the opposing team is peeling out all your rocks (when legally allowed to). This is of course a defensive strategy used to preserve your lead. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

In Canadian play, teams can give up at any time. At the Olympics, teams are actually required to play 8 ends before conceding. 70.28.107.177 21:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This minimum 8-end rule only applies in the knockout rounds and beyond right? Cos I saw in the round-robin games, that there are teams that gave up with only 6 ends played. --Kiwi8 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Curling-2006.gif

Image:Curling-2006.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Curling-2006.gif

Image:Curling-2006.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Time looks like dates that don not make sense

Shouldn't the times at the end of the games be changed to just have the year, 2006? And is the time even accurate because I doubt all the game started at the same time? InformationContributor11 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the times are for the 2006 Winter Olympics, adding ", 2006" would be quite redundant. The times are accurate and should be trusted, because the organizers and the participants follow the schedule of events as it is listed. Sure, the games could have been a few seconds off in starting time, but the leads are called to throw their first stones after practice time is over, according to schedule. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Curling at the 2006 Winter Olympics. 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/20050205220903/http://www.torino2006.org/sport/content.php?idm=100028 to http://www.torino2006.org/sport/content.php?idm=100028
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404104618/http://www.curling.ch/resultate/scl/olympic_trials/fr.aspx to http://www.curling.ch/resultate/scl/olympic_trials/fr.aspx

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) 15:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)