Talk:2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal table/Archive 2

Athletes' medal record

I am hesistant in adding a new subject for discussion, but compare the following pages: Alexander Karelin, Charles Bennett, Oliver Golding and An-Sophie Mestach. It's not strictly about this article, but I raise the issue here to reach as many interested editors as possible. I think the precedence from the two older pages makes sense. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

On which talk page is the main discussion going on? You aren't going to discuss this topic on multiple talk pages are you? ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I added it here because this is where we have been discussing the implications of medals awarded to mixed-NOC teams. I have not started any discussion on other talk pages, but as this subject is not strictly about the medal table I am unsure whether this is the correct page for this discussion. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 12:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I see, there is no issue with that. Unified Team (Alexander Karelin's article) is the name of the entity all the Soviet states participated under while the Soviet Union existed. Different thing altogether. Mixed team (Charles Bennett's article) — as mentioned before — was the term used back in the 1896–1904 Olympics. Times have changed, and so has the terminology used today. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 14:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of striked out comments: Unified Team and mixed team are terms that are out-of-bounds. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the terminology change (as I supported it), and of the Unified team. (In fact I made a comment including an explanation of a number of entities competing under the Olympic flag which was removed by an IP editor.) My point was that those two articles showed which entity the athlete was representing at the events in which they medalled. As it stands, Oliver Golding's medal record shows the two separate entities he represented during the 2010 Summer Youth olympics. He only got a medal while representing one of them. I don't see anything particularly wrong with this approach, but it seems that past precedence is to show which entity the athlete was representing at the event(s) in which they medalled. As for An-Sophie Mestach just listing Belgium is simply incorrect. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think given the clear distinction we have agreed on between "Mixed team" and a "Mixed-NOCs team", a new precedent should be set here and there's no need to follow the old precedent in this case. Strange Passerby (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There is no need to follow the old precedent. However, if it where to make sense, we may choose to do so. There is currently an inconsistency in how the different athletes' medal records display this. I can now see two potential problems with the current format (as seen on Oliver Golding). 1: He, or any other mixed-NOC medallist, may be successful in future Olympic Games in which they would represent their NOC in all events. Their medal record would then include both "[c]ompetitor for NOC and a mixed-NOC team" and "[c]ompetitor for NOC" 2: I don't think we would have added "[c]ompetitor for NOC and a mixed-NOC team" to an athlete's medal records if they medalled while representing their NOC but failed to medal in the mixed-NOC team event. Wasn't the consensus on the medal table issue partly based on athletes not representing their NOC when part of a mixed-NOC team? Unrelated comment: on the official site there are some continental codes in use, namely AFR, AME, ASI, EUR and OCE. Will they be of any use? They can be found the start lists and result pages of today's medley relays at http://www.singapore2010.sg/public/sg2010/en/en_games/en_games_results.html. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

An alternative could be to treat the archery and tennis pairs like a ZZX team from old (as the tennis certainly seems to be in that spirit, if not in practice), and list them as representing a "mixed team", with the other athletes (if they were to get articles) being listed as having represented "Europe" or "Americas". Just a thought. Strange Passerby (talk) 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, hadn't thought of that. Possibly "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team representing Europe" if it's not to long. If it is too long Europe is fine. I believe the Council of Europe flag, as well as the flags for the other continents, to be inappropiate; the olympic flag should be used. For tennis and archery I think "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team" (using the modern term) is sufficient. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to make things more complicated, the table-tennis is presented as a continental event, but with individual teams representing Japan, Singapore, France, Chinese Taipei, Egypt, South Korea, North Korea, Netherlands, Hungary, New Zealand, Brazil and Croatia [1]. So technically, that's a combined mixed-NOCs/individual-NOC event. Strange Passerby (talk) 02:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See User:Strange Passerby/Proposals for athletes' mixed-NOCs medal records for some possibilities on how to present these boxes. Strange Passerby (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 'Competitor for a mixed-NOCs' is sufficient with the link to a particular team event. I also would vote for not using any 3 letter codes for Mixed-NOC teams based on the fact that the teams’ compositions are different for different sports, for instance, in fencing at YOG there were 2 ASIA-OCEANIA teams Fencing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Mixed team. The decision to have such teams was based on total number of fencers representing these 2 continents, which was also regulated by quote. We should not be using ZZX since it is not used in official documents or try to predict where this all will go in the future. If 3 letters codes used in reports can be matched to the full continents' names, using full names is preferable. No troll (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand all your reasons, but I agree that we cannot assign any code to such teams now. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

IOC does not use any continental codes whatsoever. The only sports federation to my knowledge which uses them is IAAF, the athletics body. The continental codes were used in the forms probably due to the IAAF link. Not official in the Olympics however, so no continental codes. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. They were only used for athletics, so probably from forms submitted to or from the IAAF. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of striked out comments: No continental codes to be used. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am currently working on some viable solutions for the presentation of the medal records. Some are already shown to the right → ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 07:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to do it in a sandbox so this page doesn't get extended further for this unrelated-to-article purpose? I've already made my proposals at User:Strange Passerby/Proposals for athletes' mixed-NOCs medal records. Strange Passerby (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Oliver Golding 3 I found all your proposals viable. I have a slight preference for Odane Skeen 2, David Bolarinwa 2 and Oliver Golding 1. I think the wording could be improved as "Competitor for Europe team" seems wrong. As Europe often had several teams, perhaps "an European team" would be better. Regarding Oliver Golding 1 it is better than what I had hoped for, which was Oliver Golding 2. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I don't like the footnoted versions of the medal record tables myself. Rephrased both OS2 and DB2 to "an Americas team" and "a Europe team". As "Americas" and "Europe" were the names given to the relay teams I'm reluctant to use "European". Strange Passerby (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, I'm still for proposals 2, 2 and 1. In the above link to the table tennis event I also noticed some Intercontinental teams. The IOC and the organizing committee really are maddeningly unhelpful. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we do away with the general names of the mixed-NOCs teams? If its called "Americas 3", leave it as "Americas 3" and not "Americas". Because the Americas teams in the different events work in different ways. Leave it as the official name. Inference here wouldn't be good. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If you agree with me, let me say too that phrases such as "an Americas team" are not gramatically sound. It'll be like "an Americas 3 team" - strange. So if you want to specify the team name (no opinions on this so far), put it in parentheses or after a dash. "a mixed-NOCs team (Americas 3)" or "a mixed-NOCs team – Americas 3". ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 09:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think except for the tennis and archery, where there are team names they should be specified. In your example, we could rephrase it to " Americas 3 team". In the case of the medley relay however, this should not be an issue. I would much prefer keeping the names. Strange Passerby (talk) 09:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

So do you agree with me? If the official team name is "Americas", there's no altername names anyway so it remains "Americas". Yeah, that rephrasal also works. As for whether it should be specified, I haven't thought about it and have no opinions so far. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As no athlete can compete at two Summer Youth Olympics, I can only see two possible scenarios in which specifying the team name would cause problems. 1: An athlete competes at the next Winter Youth Olympics and wins a medal for a mixed-NOC team with a different name (e.g. Americas and Americas 3). 2: Mixed-NOC events are included in the Olympic Games. This seems unlikely to happen, and the most plausible sport is tennis which wouldn't present a problem anyway. Unless one of the two scenarios happen keeping the team name seems unproblematic. Agree with points on grammatical correctness. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Reply to 85.167.109.50's comment: As such, the team name should be secondary reference. It can't be primary reference, i.e. "for an Americas team". In another event, there is a team called "Americas 1". Do a comparison and people are going to get really, really confused. So it's secondary reference, which means in brackets or after a dash. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we model the medal records after Charles Bennett's? His medal record is already the conventional one, so if we use a different system we are changing the convention. However, we still can tweak the convention by specifying the team name. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I now agree with the above statement. Team name included after a dash looks better to me than when enclosed in brackets. I will not spend my time discussing the punctuation, so if you disagree I've got no problem with brackets. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As I said above in a statement you struck out for whatever reason, given the clear distinction we have agreed on between "Mixed team" and a "Mixed-NOCs team", a new precedent should be set here and there's no need to follow the old precedent. Strange Passerby (talk) 10:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, misinterpreted. I thought you were using "precedent" to refer to the terminology. Okay, terminology-wise, we are not following the old precedent. However, when referring to the medal record phrasing, there is no need to use the old precedent but we are not ruling it out. Actually, can't we stay with the old precedent when it comes to phrasing? After all, just because the old precedent in one area has been abandoned doesn't mean the old precedent in another area must be abandoned as well. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there really a precedent as far as team names are concerned? I think team name after a dash makes sense. Can't reply for a while. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We aren't talking about team names here. We are referring to the phrasing. In Charles Bennett it was "Competitor for a Mixed team". It is different in the proposals, e.g. "Competitor for an Americas team". I'm saying we can keep the old precedent, which would thus mean: "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team". No specifying the team name, just the entity called "mixed-NOCs". ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Note There were some mistakes in layout in the original medal record tables proposed by Strange Passerby. If you wish to see what they were, look at this comparison. Everything's good now. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

With Kim Dae-Beom getting his own article and having won medals for both KOR and a mixed NOC team, I've provisionally followed Charles Bennett's article, but I do think it's worth discussing further whether or not to include the mixed-NOC team names where they exist. Strange Passerby (talk) 12:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team" will work. "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team - Americas 3", "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team (Americas 3)" and "Competitor for the mixed-NOCs team Americas 3" are three plausible alternatives. I think listing the team name in some fashion is desirable. However, in the unlikely event that an athlete were to medal with two differently named mixed-NOCs teams during their career this will present a problem. It would be odd if their medal record included "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team - Americas 3" and "Competitor for a mixed-NOCs team - Americas 2" as separate entries. As this has yet to happen (and seems unlikely to happen), I support adding the team names in addition to mixed-NOCs team. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents to the discussion: format and readability wise adding actual team names in the infobox are undesirable. Actual team name can be mentioned in the article and also retrieved from the link in the medal record. No troll (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, can I assume that current consensus on presentation medals from 2010 YOG is on using medal records from Kim Dae-Beom article? Thank you No troll (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The team name would indeed fit better in the main text part of the athlete's article. The situation must be explained anyway. Very well, I agree that team names needn't be added to the medal records, as that information will be easily accessible on the same page, as well as on the page linked to from the medal records. As for consensus, I am not sure, but based on Strange Passerby's provisional acceptance above I think the medal records can be updated to that standard pending his agreement or further discussion. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've no issue with using the Kim Dae-Beom format on articles for someone who's won medals for both their nation and a mixed-NOC team; I think there needs to be further discussion on how to present medals for people like Oliver Golding and An-Sophie Mestach. Strange Passerby (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean athletes medalling only for a mixed-NOC team. As I stated earlier in the discussion, I found Oliver Golding 1 very informative. It shows that he medalled for a mixed-NOCs team, while also showing that he entered the Youth Olympics (opening ceremony and singles) for Great Britain. This information would presumably also be available in the Oliver Golding article, but I see no problems with keeping the extra line. 85.167.109.50 (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No team names in my opinion. The names all vary in their phrasing — InterContinental 2, InterContinental, AFR, Europe 3, Europe, RUS-ITA. Also, it would go against the spirit of the mixed-NOCs concept since the focus is away from achievement and more towards 'friendship' and 'respect' etc. There's no representative authority governing these mixed-NOCs teams (e.g. the InterContiental Committee), just assistance from the NOCs and the IOC. The old precedent was to not state the team name (I'm referring to the Mixed teams in the ~1900 Olympics). So not stating the team name, and just leaving the fact that is is "a mixed-NOCs team" is way better than actually stating the team name. Of course, we must also mention the team name is the respective articles so ambiguity is removed. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 06:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As for the Oliver Golding and An-Sophie Mestach problem, it is relatively straightforward I realised. The medal records are in their biographical articles simply because they won a medal. There are tons of athletes who competed in the Olympics but did not get any medal; so they had no medal record in their biographical article. The sole purpose of the medal record, yes, the only purpose, is to present the medal details, and not details of his or her competitive participation. I think some might point out and say hey, it will only state that he/she competed for the mixed-NOCs team but fail to mention he/she also competed for his or her own NOC, and so there will be confusion. Will there be confusion? I don't think so. Any layman would realise the athlete could not have competed solely for that mixed-NOCs team. In fact, the reader can just check the article proper which would have explained the athlete's participation in the Games. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 06:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Having rethought the matter over the last day, I think the article is the best place for non-medal related "competitor for", as whether we add it to the medal record or not it would have to be explained. For instance a (hypothetical) medallist for the Soviet Union who unsuccesfully competed for the Unified team and Armenia, would only have Soviet Union in the medal record. A competitor who solely medalled for the mixed-NOCs team should only have mixed-NOCs team in their medal record. I thought the team name issue was resolved ("do not include"). 85.167.109.50 (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So that team name issue has been resolved already? I agree with you on the medal record issue. If the rest agree, well then this is settled. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 08:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)