Talk:2012 Summer Olympics medal table

Stick stricktly to IOC official data at the moment

In the pages of the national committees at the IOC website it is indicated the number of medals OFFICIALLY recognised to every IOC at the moment. So, if we go to the page of the NOC of Ukraine we see that in the games of LONON-2012 the following medals are recognised by the OIC for this country: 6 gold, 4 silver, 9 bronze. https://www.olympic.org/ukraine (Roll a bit down the page) However, some people here, which probably consider having more authority and knowledge than the IOC have input 6 gold, 4 silver, 8 bronze for Ukraine. The same holds for other countries, including Russian Federation. https://www.olympic.org/russian-federation: 22 - 24 - 32, recognised by IOC at this moment, and not 22 - 23 - 32, input by "somebody" here. PLEASE WAIT TILL ANY CHANGE IS OFFICIALLY DONE BY THE IOC AND STICK STRICTLY TO THE OFFICIAL IOC PUBLICATIONS. I would like to correct such disrespectful information in this Wikipedia article, but it is really impossible to talk in a decent way with such "ultra wise and full of authority" redactors. Please, BE DONE TO EARTH!

Medal table formatting

inb4 SORT BY GOLD/TOTAL/PER CAPITA wars

Why "wars"? I just came here wondering if we might include a per-capita column. Is this a touchy subject, or something that's been finally settled after much bloodshed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.62.195.143 (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I noticed that the wikiformatting for the medal table was more complicated than the table in 2010 or 2008. It's so much more complicated that, as someone who worked on both those medal tables in real-time, I would feel uncomfortable editing this table. If there are advantages to this formatting, that's great; otherwise, I think it would be simpler to go back to the old medal table format. Kingnavland (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It's essentially the same. You would update the medal totals the same way. The extra 'stuff' are rowscopes to comply with new MOS/Accessibility (see WP:DTAB for tables introduced since 2008/2010, so, no, the table format should not be changed back, as it would go against MOS. It really isn't anymore complicated. Ravendrop 01:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, will read up. Appreciate that it's easier for those using screen readers. Kingnavland (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the two years since Vancouver, the WP:FL standards have gone up. Basically, the table of a medal table going through FLC now should look like the table on 1980 Winter Olympics medal table, which meets current FL standards on table markup. (I'm fairly certain the will be going to FLC shortly after the games, and this type of work is easier to build from the start, rather than at the end.) Courcelles 03:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody edited them down the old format; wasn't me, I promise. Should we keep it in this format until the end of the Games and then convert? Kingnavland (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Preferably not. It is so much easier to do it properly the first time, than to convert it later. It is updated essentially the same way, it is in no way more difficult. Ravendrop 15:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Best thing to do might be to let it ride until tonight, and then switch everything over at the conclusion of today's events. Kingnavland (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding bronze medal wins

Just quick questions. Should bronze medals be added right after bronze medal matches? Or should we wait for silver and gold to be also determined? Nightfall87 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ideally we would wait until the event is completed to make sure that medals aren't duplicated. That's been past practice. Kingnavland (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup. And since wikipedia isn't a news service, immediate reporting of every medal isn't necessary, or even the goal. Accuracy is. So, the best bet is to wait until the event as a whole is over and all medals for it have been awarded. Ravendrop 14:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case this should be added to comment. Although someone already did that. :) On the other matter. Should we also keep list of concluded events for the current day? Not just last one that is added to the list? Nightfall87 (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Past practice has been to get rid of the event in the list after it's been added to the medal table; although I would be okay with adding a "concluded events" section just above the active events. Kingnavland (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't understand the point of having an inaccurate medal table, is bizarre. Arthur7171 (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2012

Bronze medal counts

can someone tell me how right now there are 2 more bronze award than other medals?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.135.232 (talk) 03:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

As the article states, "In boxing, judo, taekwondo, and wrestling, two bronze medals are awarded in each weight class." I assume that this is the reason. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources and protection

Two - and a half - somewhat unrelated queries:

1) What are the sources people use while updating? I use BBC Sport and the London 2012 official site.
1b) I believe editors should add an edit summary mentioning - clarifying - their edit.

2) Should the article be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTN7i (talk • contribs) 14:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

1) Yes, those, plus NBCSports; 1b) Yes, that is best practice, but good luck. 2) I think that has been practice in previous years. Kingnavland (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, every edit should get an edit summary. It's a good general practice. It's a particularly wise practice here, because an edit summary would make it clear which event results are being added. --JamesAM (talk) 16:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:2012 Summer Olympics medal table

I think creating a seperate template is a stupid idea. After all, what's the point of this page if there's a template as well? Besides, no other page makes use of the full medal table anyway (and if they do, they shouldn't). Sure, the main page uses a smaler table but the updating of this and the main Olympics page will only go on for a few weeks. After that, any advantages the template offers are moot.-- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This table is up-to-date as of ...

How would people feel about taking that out of the hidden text and putting into visible text right above the table? I feel like we'll get fewer duplicate edits if ignorant users are aware that the table has already been updated. Kingnavland (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. At the top of the table, there should be a statement that says something to the effect of "This table is up-to-date as of ...". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This table currently has no value without an As Of date and time - please add it ASAP - thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.225.97 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ability to sort columns

Why are there no ascending/descending sorting arrows on the columns for Gold, Silver, and Bronze? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The arrows are there, but you can't see them. Which, I agree, is not particularly helpful. Kingnavland (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've switched it to use Template:RankedMedalTable, as per 2008 - this seems to make the arrows display. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! That's much better! Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect month

Above the table, it states that this is accurate as of June 30, when July is meant. I cannot edit it because of the protected status of the article. 131.225.23.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

YES. Please amend the "up to date as of ...JUNE" It's July!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillicomm (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Greasemonkey script

If it's of any use, I've knocked up a user script that converts the London2012 medal table to wikitext. (I am supposed to be working, but this is more fun than generating EDI files.) Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 10:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rank numbers wrong

WHY SO MANY PEOPLE HERE TYPE WHAT THEY DO WANT AND NOT WHAT IS OFFICIALLY PUBLISHED BY INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTE (IOC)? Such behaviour is nasty, arrogant and cheating! In the pages of the national committees in the official IOC website it is indicated the number of medals OFFICIALLY recognised to every IOC at the moment. So, if we go to the page of the NOC of Ukraine we see that in the games of LONON-2012 the following medals are recognised by the OIC for this country: 6 gold, 4 silver, 9 bronze. https://www.olympic.org/ukraine (Roll a bit down the page) However, some people here, which probably consider having more authority and knowledge than the IOC have input 6 gold, 4 silver, 8 bronze for Ukraine. The same holds for other countries, including RF. PLEASE WAIT TILL ANY CHANGE IS OFFICIALLY DONE BY THE IOC AND STICK STRICTLY TO THE OFFICIAL IOC PUBLICATIONS. I would like to correct such disrespectful information in this Wikipedia article, but it is really impossible to talk in a decent way with such "ultra wise and full of authority" redactors. Please, be down to earth! --GabEuro (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

per WP:BOLD I've closed the unproductive discussion below. Please stay on topic: whether this article should use a different ranking system to the one used currently. Currently No consensus to that change. Things that like "Superpowers medal tally" belongs to userspace. Ibicdlcod (talk) 08:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Rank numbers are wrong. China and the USA are tied for 1st. Japan is ranked 13 when they should be 3rd. Please repair. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would have read the "Medal table" paragraphs you would see how it sorts. it ranks by gold, than silver, bronze, and last total.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not understanding. Total medals should be rank. If go by Gold, many countries would not be ranked at all. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What is not understanding? Medal table have always been ranked by gold well beside the US mostly but CNN Olympic portal also ranked by gold not total medals. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 20:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I thought it ranks by gold, silver, and bronze, then alphabetically by IOC country code --MSalmon (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

97.81, you'll find more information at Olympic medal table. You presumably live in one of the minority of countries that report the medal table by number of medals. This is not the way most of the world - or the IOC itself - does it. --Dweller (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the IOC doesn't recognize any particular method. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/24/AR2008082400851_pf.html

"China has won the most gold medals and the United States of America won the most total," International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge said during a news conference Sunday. "I believe each country will highlight what suits it best. One country will say, 'Gold medals.' The other country will say, 'The total tally counts.' We take no position on that." Phizzy 19:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank by Gold is only good for big Countrys like USA and China. Small Countrys who get more metals get sent to bottom because USA and China get all gold. Unfair to other Countrys. Please understanding. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point, but you'll need to persuade the International Olympic Committee to change things, not me, or Wikipedia. And incidentally, Kazakhstan, a "big" country by size, but "small" in terms of international sport success, are looking pretty good in the table with their three golds so far. On medals won, they'd be way down the list. You win some, you lose some. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

IOC searched their website. NO medal table. Only London commity. IOC has no table. IOC has no rankings. This table bassed on Contrys media of large Countrys. USA and China win all Gold, not fair to other Countrys that have no money. Can only get Silver or Bronze at best. IOC does not have rankings. Should remove ranking numbers, set board to ALL medals won. Be fair to all the World.97.81.50.48 (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

"You win some, you lose some." - Subject to the drug test. Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree this ranking method seems nonsensical. North Korea is ranked above Russia. Why? They have one more gold medal but six fewer silver medals and seven fewer bronze medals. An objective person would conclude that Russia has had a much more successfull Olympic games thus far compared to North Korea.

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
8	North Korea (PRK)	4	0	1	5
9	Russia (RUS)	3	6	8	17

And then there's Kazakhstan and South Africa ranked above Japan. Huh?

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
10	Kazakhstan (KAZ)	3	0	0	3
	South Africa (RSA)	3	0	0	3
12	Japan (JPN)	2	6	11	19

Ideally, I think the medals should be weight (3 for gold, 2 for silver, and 1 for bronze, for example), and then ranked the NOCs by the weight. Phizzy 20:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it. It is not a matter of what you or I or anyone else thinks "should" be the way it's ordered. That approach leads only to interminable disagreement, such as the above discussion. We use the ordering supplied by the IOC itself. They don't endorse it as better or worse than any other ordering, and outside organisations are free to re-order it any way they like. The way Wikipedia likes is to use the exact same ordering as the IOC supplies, whatever it is. That way, the IOC makes the decision, not Wikipedia. If you don't like the ordering, take it up with the IOC. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think we can leave the ordering exactly as it is but dispense with rank numberings. For many comparisons between countries, the rank number is NOT indicative of their relative "success". It is essentially meaningless. It should go. But we have to order the countries in some way, and the current order is perfectly fine for that, for my reasons above. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Jack, I agree with most of what you say above. However, I disagree that the rank numbers are "meaningless". First, that is the rank assigned by the IOC. Second – be it good, bad, or indifferent as a ranking method – it indeed does have meaning: namely, which nation won the most gold medals, which nation won the second most gold medals, etc. There is some value in that. It is not random, arbitrary, or totally devoid of meaning. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to stick to what is in the sources rather than making stuff up because we don't like it. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, so that would appear to rule out making any changes to the present ranking system, as it is the one presented by the IOC. However there might be room to present alternative ranking systems alongside the official one, as long as they have a reliable source and are not just something invented by wikipedia editors, as that would constitute original research. G-13114 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The total number of medals is not used in the rankings (goes gold, silver and bronze, then by IOC County Code) --MSalmon (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What MSalmon has stated is the correct system used by the IOC. On a different note though, how is Phizzy allowed to have an image (Image:SimpleMichigan.svg) in their signature? I thought they were not permitted per WP:CUSTOMSIG? Have the rules now changed depending on the user? Wesley Mouse 21:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph, take this scenario: Country A has 1 gold but no other medals, and is ranked 9th; Country B has no golds but 23 silvers and bronzes, and is ranked 17th. Even the IOC does not suggest that Country A is "more successful" than Country B just because it's higher up the list. Any ranking system that seeks to deal with multiple values simultaneously is fraught with compromise, and this is simply the way this particular system places countries with these sorts of results. I'm not suggesting we change the order in any way at all, but to give Country A the label "9th" and Country B the label "17th", just because that's where they happen to end up on this list, seriously over-eggs the pudding. It's obvious that the country at the top of the list is number 1, and it's just as obvious that countries lower down the list are where they are. But adding the labels 9th vs. 17th tells us absolutely nothing about the relative strengths of those two countries. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand all of your points. I am simply saying that the rank numbers are not completely devoid of meaning. At the very least, they tell us where the country falls on the list (number 1 or number 28 or whatever) in terms of rank by gold, then silver, then bronze. It provides relative context, as opposed to absolute numbers. To say (for example) that a country earned three gold medals does not tell us as much as the fact that having three gold medals ranks them at number 17 (since 16 other countries earned more gold medals). The rank does have some meaning and does provide some context and information, albeit not a perfect system. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what is so difficult about this as that is how medal tables are always ranked regardless of how many each country got. --MSalmon (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is getting old. It is obvious that it is not about country A or country B, but about USA vs. China. China might win more gold medals than the US, whereas the US is more likely to win more medals overall. So the US might rank second again like in the Beijing Olympics. Of course the ranking system will not be changed because of this, you can only hope the US wins more gold than China, then this discussion will be over - at least for 4 years.

Why, if IOC rate gold, then silver, then bronze and disregard total numbers, why are USA ranked ahead of China. Please amend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AV8or89 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed - Some numpty thought it would be funny to reorder the medal table based on their fantasy land ideas again. Reverted it back to normal anyhow, and seeing as one user has already warned them once, I've just given them a reminder not to be so foolish. Wesley Mouse 03:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Second I second that! (Can I second that? I will anyway.)--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the US counts by total medals simply because they know that they have a much better chance of winning the total count than just the golds. Everyone knows that the US has the deepest team at every summer olympics so obviously they will win the most medals. But China's genius strategy of streamlining events has put a wrench into the US's plan. China now has a great chance to win the most golds but lose the total medals at every olympics. Ranking total medals without weighting them is basically useless, my team had the most people that finished in 3rd place, that should be equal to champions. No it should not. This website emphasizes how idiotic it is to rank simply by Medal count China finished first in every list except when simply counting the medals. Gold>silver & bronze. I think that the US will win the most golds and total medals in London due to the lack of depth this year in swimming. 1906cubs (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well now, would you look at that. LOCOG switched the London 2012 medal table over to ranking by total medals. – RVJ (talk) 06:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

...and now they've switched it back to golds. However, the leftmost column heading now explicitly explains "Rank by gold". Seems they just resolved their own little squabble over it. – RVJ (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I think to label the column on here as "rank by gold" would be a suitable solution to this too. It helps to explain to the general reader that we have also ranked the table by gold first. Wesley Mouse 11:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Vancouver 2010 committee also had their ranking done by total medals for the first couple of days before switching over to rank-by-gold. Weird stuff. Kingnavland (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Superpowers medal tally

Actually, here is a more accurate portrayal:

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	European Union	27	38	35	100
2	United States (USA)	26	13	15	54
3	China (CHN)	25	16	12	53
4	Great Britain (GBR) (Includes the Commonwealth countries)	23	25	16	64
5	Japan (JPN) (includes the former Japanese colonies)	15	13	18	46
6	Russia (RUS) (Includes the former Soviet SSRs)	13	18	21	52

*Commonwealth countries: GBR, CAN, AUS, NZ, South Africa, India, Kenya, Jamaica

• Former Soviet SSRs: RUS, KAZ, UKR, Belarus, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova
• European Union members: GER, FRA, ITA, NED, HUN, SPA, Belgium, DEN, SWE, NOR, GRE, SLO, CZE. ROM, BUL
• Former Japanese colonies: KOR, Tw

--J.M.Douglas (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. Including Korea and Taiwan as part of Greater Japan may be offensive for Koreans and Taiwanese, and EVEN MORE offensive for PR China citizens.

Very nice. Now if ever I need a definition of WP:OR I can refer to this - Basement12 (T.C) 00:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

What a load of bollocks! BTW the Commonwealth consists of far more than just the countries listed here... Roger (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Only the ones that have won medals are included, otherwise it makes no difference to the tally. --J.M.Douglas (talk) 08:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha that is funny. I love that you have excluded Great Britain from the European Union, when in actual fact they are a member. Wesley Mouse 11:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you aren't aware that NOCs (countries) are limited to one or two competitors in most events? And, that this limits single countries in your list (like the United States and China) to one medal in many events? For example, in Men's Basketball, the United States and China could only win one medal, but European Union could win three. Phizzy 15:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This topic is a load of junk and as such breaks the rules on the use of article talk pages - it's not contributing to the improvement of the article, so please shut this nonsense down. Roger (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you really want to do this do it right. EU includes GB as well as many others not mentioned Rumania, Bulgaria etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.60.13.234 (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Romania and Bulgaria have now been included. For the purposes of this medal table, GB will not be included as part of EU because GB is strong enough to stand on its own; I'm sure most British people wouldn't mind. GB uses the British pound and has no declared plans to adopt the euro in the foreseeable future.--J.M.Douglas (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it is not European Union then, just Eurozone; would be nice to have one with the actual EU, i.e Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. EU would be way ahead of everyone, even after correcting for multiple NOCs like when multiple medals are won for instance in basketball or volleyball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.232.230.254 (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it that everything on Wikipedia that requires common-sense needs to devolve into a bunch of pathetic little Napoleon complexes in a micro-weanie measuring contest? With the current, moronic, gold first situation, a country with one gold in 25 olympic games, would outrank a country with 400 medals total, but no golds. It really does take a particularly small, and arrogant mind, to rely on what is listed by the IOC which itself, expressly admits it has no interest in the order, to justify cleaving to this format. Any kindergarten child would look at a system like this and find it silly. What is your excuse? It is ABUNDANTLY clear, that the current argument has NOTHING to do with which system is better, and is more about two groups of absolute tools arguing simply because they either enjoy it, or they are too much the internet weasels to ever admit they could be wrong. I suspect that advocates for various countries who stand to move up or down in the rankings based on the choice are also contributing to the stupidity. Might I suggest an OBVIOUS solution that should have been implemented the MOMENT this argument started? Put two ranking columns. One by total medals, one by gold, on the left side. That way it is always abundantly clear what each rank is no matter how one has ordered the table using the other columns. One last point. This accomodation should have been implemented not only because it is common-sense to end the argument, and the fact that it includes the common-sense, logical ordering by total medals. It should have been implemented FIRST AND FOREMOST because not all countries default to the intellectually retarded, politically self-serving gold first. As we all instantly understand, only some nations do that. Have a LOVELY day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.178.51 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Xanax. You're complaining about this "silly" argument and your rant is the longest post on the topic. Second, two ranking columns? Really? Have you seen how screwed up the table gets during the day with fly-by editors screwing it up, and you expect there to be two ranking columns in real time? All this page does is relay the information provided by the IOC. Why you want us to reorder it, I'm not sure. Even if we did that, it wouldn't end the argument because people would fuss about which ordering the default was. Sorry you don't like it, but the consensus from previous Olympics is to rank-by-gold because that's the way the IOC provides it. Deal with it. Kingnavland (talk) 02:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay Sparky. Let's take you to school, shall we? 1. My post was not a "rant". It was a reasoned, logical argument, with a sardonic overtone. But hey, that probably went right over your head. 2. Did I change anything in the table? Nope. You are arguing that because there is another week where the table will continue to change daily, that any argument for a permanent solution which might temporarily confuse the issue is invalid. If you feel the world would end if it was implemented immediately, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to make. Making a specious leap to using that as a justification for doing nothing is moronic. 3. The consensus is NOT to rank by gold. The wiki-twits have bludgeoned that particularly moronic format onto everyone. I outlined precisely why such a ranking scheme is beyond ridiculous. You CLAIM the IOC provides it that way. THEY MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT. They SPECIFICALLY state that they do NOT rank nations. They then provide a table of total medals, as best as they can despite border and nationality changes over the years that ranks by gold first. In other words, any thinking person would be FORCED to conclude that what the IOC provides is anything BUT a national ranking. They order their table focusing on the individual athletes as best they can while showing all the medals won by nations over all olympiads. The fact that a bunch of lazy media outlets then reproduce the IOC table verbatim is not an endorsement of it as a "ranking". 4. Finally, it is ludicrous for anyone to produce a generically formatted table, where the last column says TOTAL and the ranking column on the left applys to ANY other column. As I pointed out. It is reasonable to accomodate the little internet Napoleons of the world by providing two appropriately labeled ranking columns. However, there is LITERALLY not a single, logical, reasoned argument for the default and only ranking provided to be by total gold. If you have one, please provide it. If you read this entire section, the ONLY argument used by everyone in favor of this solution is that the IOC does it that way and it has always been that way. Unfortunately for you, I've obliterated both of those faux arguments. They amount to saying just because. I'm sorry if it is inconvenient to you, but "just because" is NOT an argument. So, follow your own, pithy advice, and d-d-d-deal with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.178.51 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil. BulbaThor (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The LOCOG page ranks by golds, and that's good enough for wikipedia. Don't try to mask your blatant jingoistic indignation by trying to conceal (very unconvincingly) the only real reason as to why you even bother to bring up this dead horse of an argument once again; That your and/or your preferred NOC happens to benefit from one ranking methodology above another. Come to think of it, that goes for some of the muppets on the other side of the argument as well.

That guy is writing from Switzerland, they have won 2 medals so far, so I don't think his NOC will benefit from either ranking system. As far is I can remember consensus has always been to rank gold medals first.

Lots of USA patriots live in Switzerland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.4.151 (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I declare these 2012 Olympic Table Ranking Discussions -- Never-Ending. - Tenebris 00:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.184 (talk)

(Although this chapter of the traditional argument of golds first vs totals first vs weighted standing first has been much, much, much shorter than during previous Olympics. I think I am disappointed. - Tenebris 00:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this discussion fall foul of WP:NOT, or specifically WP:SOAP in that this is discussing the subject itself rather than the article? If so this thread should probably be deleted. The only topic up for discussion is whether this article should use a different ranking system to the one used currently. This topic has been discussed endlessly at every Olympic games since wikipedia started, and I think we have established beyond reasonable doubt that the answer to that is no. G-13114 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Netherlands entry needs a fix

The entry for Netherlands is missing a cell, so it doesn't format or sort properly. GerryCallahan (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like someone fixed it while I was typing.GerryCallahan (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait

Shouldn't Kuwait be added since they shared the bronze medal in the Shooting with Russia? --MSalmon (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They did not share the bronze medal. There was a tie "shoot off": Russia came in third (bronze), while Kuwait came in fourth. See this page for details: Shooting at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's double trap#Final. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, wasn't sure. Thanks. --MSalmon (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect date

"Note: This table reflects medal counts as of 1 August 2012 (Day 5)." Is it still true? It seems to me that today's medals are included... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.86.250 (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

GBR marked by a background colour

What is so special about them that they need such an attention-grabber? Roger (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Host nation. All of the other Olympic medal tables have the host nation thus marked, see 2004 Summer Olympics medal table for example. G-13114 (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK but why does the host country need to be marked like this - what effect does it have on the medals table? Roger (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No effect per se. It is just for informational purposes, as to which nation is the host nation. However, it is a well-documented fact that host nations earn about 50% more in medal count than they would otherwise earn (if they were not the host nation). Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Use your noggin, Dodger. Highlighting the host nations helps the general viewer to see at a quick glance how the host nation has done in the medal table compared to other nations. Wesley Mouse 12:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comparing host performance in the last four Olympics compared to their previous Olympics medal count, that "well-documented fact" is blatantly untrue for the 2004, 2000 and 1996 Olympics, although close to accurate for 2008. --Dweller (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it might make a difference if the host happens to be a country that would otherwise have a significantly smaller team. The host gets automatic entry to a number of events they would not normally qualify for. Roger (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No they do not. Unlike many other sporting events, host nations do NOT get automatic qualification in olympic events. The Home advantagemay exist due to crown support, familiarity of cliamte and surroundings etrc. etc. Dainamo (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Use your noggin Wesley - the conversation has already moved past the "just because" answer. Roger (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Erm, look at the time stamps of conversation Roger. You'll find other people have inserted their comments above mine at a later time than I posted. And "user your noggin" is a euphemism, in case you were wondering, it means "think logic". Picked up that phrase from a spectator at the Olympic Park the other day while on one of my volunteering shifts. Wesley Mouse 13:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Different totals for the different medals

What accounts for the different totals of gold, silver and bronze medals awarded? Which events didn't award exactly one of each? Roger (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It's already explained in teh article "In boxing, judo, taekwondo, and wrestling, two bronze medals are awarded in each weight class. Two silver medals (and no bronze) were awarded for second place ties in the men's 200 metre freestyle swimming and men's 100 metre butterfly swimming event." - Basement12 (T.C) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved the explanation to after the Totals row, where it makes more sense. Roger (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorting by total medals

If the user decides to order the table by total medals it does not deal with ties properly. Team GB and Russia currently have the same number of medals but if ranked by total medals Russia appears higher for no particular reason I can work out. It doesn't even seem to be an alphabetical thing. I know that the official way of ordering is to do it using total golds but if the table is going to offer an option for ordering based on total medals surely those countries that are tied should be listed based on a secondarly criterion such as number of golds.

What criterion is being used currently to list tied countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, we have won another one now so it works again.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.109.225 (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Good question - currently tied on 48 medals, and Russia shows up above GB. Hungary (4G 2S 3B) below Ukraine (3G 0S 6B). Odd. Nations with one medal are listed with 1G first; then 1S, then 1B nations - sensible. Springnuts (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't explain what's exactly going on here, but once the table is sorted away from its default, the table isn't smart enough to use "tiebreakers." So if you sort away from the default, any tied countries are randomized. Kingnavland (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Event schedule

I will be heading out of town for a couple of days, so I will not be able to insert the schedule of events into the hidden text. Hopefully someone else can pick up my slack here. Thanks! Kingnavland (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

South Korea

they just have 6 bronze medals and not 7... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aztecas KAZ (talk • contribs) 17:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Medal table ranking arguments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The previous discussion was prematurely closed by another contributor. I wouldn't want to make him/her feel less BOLD by undoing it so I will begin again. As far as I can gather, there are two main arguments for ranking nations in medal tables on olympic articles by gold only, then silver etc. 1. The IOC does it this way. 2. Wikipedia has argued this for millenia, and it has always been this way, and women should not be priests...oops, sorry...I digress...we want to pretend consensus has been reached.

Let me deal with argument number 2 first. The fact that something has been argued endlessly, and the wrong conclusion has been reached, is not in itself, an argument in favor of the status quo. Furthermore, for an argument to reach an ACTUAL consensus, rather than merely the political propaganda version of "consensus", logical, reasoned arguments from both sides have to be weighed, based on objective criteria, and one argument must somehow supplant the other. I would suggest we use the climate change scientist's version of consensus. The current status quo in absence of the ability to silence anyone and everyone religiously devoted to that status quo, is the equivalent of the climate change denier's current de facto veto on policy addressing that problem. Number 2, fails as an argument. It isn't one. It isn't even convincingly disguised as one.

Now, argument number 1. The IOC does it this way, thus God has spoken, and all who shall contradict will be burned at the stake. Well, no. As I have already argued...the IOC specifically does not do it this way. They specifically state that they do NOT rank nations. Wiki is an international community. I can forgive people for whom English is a second language for missing the obvious context here, but the rest of you have no excuse. If they don't rank nations, anything they provide on their website could not possibly be a ranking. Indeed, as the epitome of the word bureaucrat, we can be reasonably certain they would bend over backwards not to dig themselves a hole by putting their list of medals earned by each country in a format that most people could not possibly fail to consider a ranking. Clearly, they have overestimated the reasoning skills of the average visitor to their website. Or at least those who frequent Wikipedia as editors. There are other, common-sense arguments. How can a nation with one gold total, over all olympiads, "outrank" a nation with dozens, or even hundreds, with no golds? It is irrelevant if this has never occured. I submit that no reasonable person can maintain this argument. Thus, those who wish to maintain the status quo, slip quickly back to the assertion "the IOC does it this way, so our hands are tied", in a fashion resembling a politician trying to avoid answering a question that shows he is a liar.

Thus this inevitably devolves into a political argument. Someone in favor of total medals must be American and want his nation first (I'm not American, not that this should be relevant, or that it will prevent the inevitable ad hominems asserting that I really am from all manner of intellectual giants). Someone in favor of golds only must be from some small nation that wins gold every olympiad in a few events (say Kenya) and wants their nation higher. These are not rational arguments. They are political crap flinging and ad hominems by people with no real argument to proffer.

The table as it is currently, has a total column on the right side. It is ludicrous, that on the left, there should be a single column, labeled rank, that does not correlate with the column labeled total. I thought suggesting two appropriately labeled rank columns was a relatively simple solution that would instantly eliminate the argument. Regardless of whether you belong to the religion of gold only, or the scientific atheism of total medals, all belief systems could be accomodated with a collaborative spirit. Apparently not.

Finally, let me dispense with one other, inevitable suggestion that "most nations follow the IOC version, and only the U.S. and Canada don't". Firstly, this is just a repackaged version of the political non-arguments that advocates for either side only want their country to move up or down. Secondly, the fact a bunch of lazy, moronic, media outlets world-wide choose to simply pillage and regurgitate unaltered, the IOC data, is not a reasoned, logical argument that such a table is even a ranking of nations. It is, empirically, a ranking of gold medals won by nations, followed by silver etc. If that is what they choose to present to their viewers/readership, that is certainly valid. It does not magically change that table into a ranking of nations by their overall achievements at the olympics. That would require ranking by total medals.

So any media using the IOC default table is uninformed, moronic and lazy whereas you can be so damn sure that every outlet that uses the total ranking table has made a conscious logical choice? The truth is that most North american news outlets use the news wire from AP whereas other use Reuters, Agence France, Xinhua, etc, who all use the IOC default method. There's more routine than reflection behind it, and the fact that you're obviously not thinking logically enough to realize this pretty much discounts your faux empiricism here.

I would suggest, that if people decide to join the American tea party on this, and insist on their way, with no accomodation to both systems as an equitable middle ground, then in order to maintain the status quo, they should be forced to first provide a logical reasoned argument for ranking by gold. If you cannot state, unequivocally that if it were your choice, you would do it that way, and need to resort to "the IOC says so", or "you arrogant American" or "the civilized world all does it this way", none of which are actual arguments, merely dogma, then you have no reasoned justification to assert that it should be by golds. The IOC has been quoted as saying that they expect most countries to choose what ranking they feel suits them. Thus, they undoubtedly expect that to happen here as well. Wikipedia is supposed to be about facts. It is an encyclopedia. The current "consensus" amounts to nothing more than the whim of concerted zealots, many of whom may legitimately believe that the IOC has ranked the nations despite their assertions to the contrary, but most of whom have already betrayed their bias with the standard fall-back positions I've already mentioned, all of which are political arguments, not logical, reasoned ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.178.51 (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Except that it's not up to Wikipedia to determine what is the "best" system. We have to go by what reliable sources say. The IOC source ranks by golds first. London 2012 . com ranks by golds first. The vast majority of Reliable sources rank by golds first. Only a few American/Canadian sources do total first. It's not up to us to choose the "best" system. It's up to the reliable sources, namely the IOC and London 2012, and we just have to reflect that. I'm American (not that it matters, as you said), and personally think total medals is "best", though maybe I'm biased due to my experience with American systems. However, it's not up to me, nor is it up to you. We need to go by what our reliable sources say - that is Wikipedia policy. And the vast majority of reliable sources do golds first. While I think that's silly, it's what they do, and therefore it's what we must do. To advocate otherwise would be in violation of Wikipedia policy. Smartyllama (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, we did have this discussion.... In 2010, and 2008. And the outcome was the same. Go look it up if you want to find it. There is established consensus, established at least twice. I don't see the need to discuss this again. Judging by the fact that you have almost no contributions other than to this talk page, I'm guessing you weren't around then, but we have established consensus. MANY times. Smartyllama (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This was discussed to death in 2008 and 2010 (see Talk:2010 Winter Olympics medal table for example) I think most people here have decided that the issue is settled, and have decided to move on. I don't really see any value in continuing to flog this particular dead horse. G-13114 (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally feel that medal rankings should be by total medals first, but it does appear that the IOC and the majority of world media (with the exception of the US media) rank by gold medals first. Cla68 (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition, the weighted medal ranking (3 for gold, 2 for silver, 1 for bronze) should not be added to the table because this system is not notable enough on the Web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.24.47 (talk) 00:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it should be stressed that the table is reproduced from the LOCOG (london2012.com) page, and have the ranking column explicitly state "rank by gold"?

Rank changes if we change to total sorting:(As of 7 August 0:55)

GBR 3-4 KOR 4-7 FRA 5-6 RUS 6-3 ITA 7-10 KAZ 8-20 GER 9-8 HUN 10-14 PRK 11-24 NED 12-11 CUB 13-21 BLR 14-15 NZL 15-16 RSA 16-28 UKR 17-13

JPN 18-5 AUS 19-9 DEN/ROU 20-17 BRA 22-19 POL 23-22 IRA/JAM 24-29 CRO 26-35 ETH 27-31 CAN 28-12 SWE 29-23 CZE 30-25 KEN 31-26 DOM/GEO/SUI 33-40 LTU 36-43 :GRN/VEN 37-53 MEX 39-27 COL 40-33 ESP 41-36 EGY 42-44 SVK 43-34 AZE/BEL/IND(Why India lack medals?) 44-37 ARM/INA/MGL/NOR/SRB/TUN 47-45 :CYP/EST/GUA/MAS/THA/TPE 53-55 GRE-MDA 59-51

If we change,

Russia, Japan, Australia, Canada, Mexico, Slovakia will rank significantly higher,

RO Korea, Kazakstan, DPR Korea, Cuba, South Africa, Crotia, Grenada/Venerula(sorry can't spell) will rank significantly lower.Ibicdlcod (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

We're almost certainly not going to change, for the reasons that have been spelled out many times. So this discussion is pretty pointless, unless we want to fill endless acres of talkpage space with the same circular unproductive arguments. This ground has been covered thoroughly before. G-13114 (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how sarcasm and weak humour is supposed to re-open a discussion that has already happened countless times already, (as pointed out by previous editors). No need to re-open the discussion, the same points will be put forward as they have been in the past. FFMG (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh puuuhhhleeeezzze not again! Just drop the *&%#$%# stick already!

I'd like to propose an immediated block for the duration of the Olympics & Paralympics plus 30 days (i.e. until 9 October) for anyone who even mentions this dead stinking carcass of a topic from here on. Roger (talk) 07:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Endlessly arguing this point can win you a medal of sorts. --Dweller (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

This has been done to death. As pointed ouut, it is not up to Wikipedia to invent a system but to refer to the reliable sources who present this infromation. For my two cents worth on the dissenters on why the gold, silver, bronze ascendancy is genuinely better think about this: The olympics are ultimately about achieving victory. There is no scientific methodology that can define how many "also rans" in second or third place count for the same as first place. Any system we choose is going to be arbritary. Using this logic, once the gold count is exhausted the tables on to the silver (the nex best medal winning achievement) and then the bronze. Dainamo (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of prominent news sources that offer "weighted" medal rankings. We can simply refer to those. The issue here is not a lack of reliable sources. Wrad (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think some are failing to grasp the entire point here and are literally grasping at straws to try and win the battle that is clearly not going anywhere. Sure there are sources that show the medal tabled ranked by total medals. But the IOC's own website which would be the most supreme of all the reliable sources have the medals ranked by gold first, which is the correct procedure if one had to be decided upon. For example, if we had one nation achieve 100 bronze medals and one nation with just one gold - are people going to say that nation with 100 bronze has done better at the games then the nation with just one gold? That would be just ludicrous as the nation to have achieved the gold has managed to finish in first place, while the one with 100 bronze has attempted to gain 1st place but FAILED! This is why most sources rank the medals by number of 1st place results first, then number of second, and number of thirds. If in the result of a tie, then they are ranked by country code. Now please people, stop being so pathetic and drop the whole débâcle and get back to constructive editing. Someone seriously needs to close this thread down like they did to the similar one above - it is wasting time. Wesley Mouse 14:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And any person who brings it up again shall consider themselves warned now - you will be blocked I hope. Smartyllama (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

No doubt this debate will rear its ugly head again come Rio 2016, if not Sochi 2014 lol. A block may be harsh, but clearly some punishment needs to be implemented as this type of discussion is clearly borderline disruptiveness. Wesley Mouse 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. The IOC does not rank anything. It doesn't endorse any ranking system, so please stop saying that it does. It is simply not true. Wrad (talk) 14:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For crying out loud - read what I wrote please. I never said the IOC endorses anything did I? I'm just sick and tired of people saying there are other "reliable sources" and trying to imply that they should take priority in order to have the ranking changed to total medals rather than the current one. What I said was if any source was to be viewed as more reliable for the sake of this argument, then it should be that of the official IOC page - even if they don't endorse medal ranking. Wesley Mouse 14:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Enough already! Shutting this crap down! Roger (talk) 14:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well said Roger - this discussion was giving me the headache of all headaches. I can see why some would want to change the ranking order, but it is clearly a system that wouldn't work as it would portray some sort of favouritism over nations. The main concern here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and therefore describes things in an encyclopaedic manner using reliable sources. We're not a news desk who should change a ranking system just because one or more persons wants to see their favourite nation ranked higher than others. Wesley Mouse 14:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Would somebody please explain to me why discussing how a medal table should be organized is "off topic" for a talk page in an article about medal tables? Wrad (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

<Sigh> Because.....It has already been discussed time and time again, endlessly. And the conclusion is always the same. There really isn't any more ground to cover. The matter is settled. Let's move on! If anyone really wants to see their medals arranged by total medals won then they can by using the sort function. G-13114 (talk) 15:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Also-rans are politicians who have lost elections. Winning a Silver or Bronze Olympic medal is an achievement to be proud of. Sure, they would rather have Gold but they shouldn't be looked upon as FAILURES.Al Cook U.S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.9.71 (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tajikistan

Why isn't Tajikistan on the list when they won 1 bronze? --MSalmon (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

They are now, just takes time for things to be updated. G-13114 (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, I just added them --MSalmon (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

Does anyone have a podium picture with even one Chinese athlete? Considering the medal rankings, the omission seems a bit strange. One with an African or South American athlete would be nice as well. - Tenebris — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.227 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a reason for these pictures to exist on here, as opposed to just some random medal ceremony. Maybe such as the 1st medal ceremony, the last and ones showing the top nations and possibly some surprise medalists, the 15yo swimmer? Andy (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the archery pic which used to be at the top was the first medal ceremony of these Olympics. The picture of the medals has been moved above that one. Beyond that? If more pictures are desired, I would suggest making them either globally representative or show some of the other higher ranking countries. There are too many surprise medallists to single out just one or two. - Tenebris 15:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.166 (talk)

Edit request on 9 August 2012

Brazil has won 7 bronze medals. Morozowski (talk) 06:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 07:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Article needs updating

This article needs be updated as the rankings as they are incorrect, you can find the correct country ratings here. Please update! Sk8terguy27 (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The page is constantly being updated - it just takes a little time. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Oh and BTW the most reliable medal information is at the offiocial source http://www.london2012.com/medals/medal-count/ Secondary sources are important but this case the official source is inevitably going to be the most up to date. Roger (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fox sports also uses a different ranking system than the offcial IOC rankings we use. so the rankings will never be the same (The medal counts however, will match) 89.105.104.50 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro

Someone could ad to the description that Montenegro is to win their first medal (they are at the Women's Handball Final). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.58.122.58 (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It'll be done once the medal becomes official. JoshMartini007 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Map of the world

I like the new map of the world, showing which nations won which color medals. However, I'd like to know if someone can change the key/legend of the map. I think it would be better if it had colored boxes as the key (as opposed to wordy descriptions). An example of what I am referring to is at this page: List of U.S. states and territories by population. See the second map down from the top on the right hand side of the page. On that map, the legend is made of up various colored boxes, as opposed to word/prose descriptions. I think this method better suits the needs of the world map on this page, also. I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Red parts on the map

The only parts of the map that should be shaded red are Western Sahara, Vatican City and South Sudan (Antarctica too, but it isn't shown on the map). Every other area on Earth is under a jurisdiction of an NOC, for example an athlete from the Faroe Islands competed for Denmark as the islands are considered part of that country. A quick look at the map and I can see that many of these areas are either disputed or considered different from their "home country" (eg. Greenland). I think it would be better to fix this because athletes would still be allowed to compete under that country. JoshMartini007 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Western Sahara is officially adminstrated by Spain even though it has not been possible for that country to excercise its UN given powers for a long time since the area is under Moroccoan ocopation and is currently awaiting a solution on its stateshood problem. So for now any athlet would be able to compete on the spanish team if the wish so.

South Sudan is competing at this olympics even though they have not yet formed a NOC, they have one athlet competing under the olympic flag together with some athletes from the Netherlands Antilles, they no longer have a NOC since they now is a part of the kingdom of the Netherlands NOC just as The Faroe Islands and Grenland are a part of Denmark and Scotland, Wales and England is a part of Great Britain. So Greenland shouldnt be red either. They have actually been offered the option of making their own NOC if they themselve wanted to pay and organise it but have choicen to stay in the Danish NOC.

So the question is does anyone really not compete at the games? Even though there is not athlets from every village of the world all areas is as far as I know covered by a NOC, escept South Sudan that havent had the time to organise a NOC yet, with all the work of starting their own country being at war and all. But they actually does compete at the games anyway on a kind of wildcard this time, and then they have four years to get the formalities in order. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Macau? Is their athletes competing under (PR)China Flag? ibicdlcod (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Macau has its own Olympic committee, but is not yet a member of the IOC (until 2016). It will then compete under the name "Macau, China". "Hong Kong, China" is a member of the IOC and did send a team to London (and won a bronze medal). - Tenebris 00:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.66 (talk)

Scotland top small country in the world

Scotland easily has been the most successful small country in the world, even beating large countries several times her size. We also produced GB's two greatest olympians - Hoy and Murray, winning 3 golds and a silver between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.246.54 (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you want - a medal? Lugnuts (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This page is not a forum... 130.88.141.34 (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Heavily censored table info detrimental to Hungary!

The table does not contain the number of citizens for the listed countries. USA is 300 mio, China 1.3 bio, Britain, South Korea circa 50-50 mio, real big countries. Hungary is only 10 million heads, so the pool for potential athletes is 5x to 130x smaller yet they have similar many medals, which is a marvellous achievement.

This info is kept censored by WP, because all countries of the world (except Poland) hate Hungary since the 1920 Little Trianon unequal peace treaty. Hungary has been staging revenge for Trianon, taking away many olympics medals from other nations and laying them at the feet of the Holy Crown. 91.82.36.77 (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many countries who have done well considering their size, but I don't think Hungary being listed in the top 10 qualifies as being hidden. BulbaThor (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The table does not refer to any country's population. All countries don't hate Hungary. Very few people outside of Hungary have ever even heard of the "Little Trianon" issue. The few that have heard of it don't really care. It certainly has absolutely no effect on the way Hungary is "treated" here - exactly the same as all countries. Roger (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to create an article showing the disparity of Olympic medals based on country population, go right ahead. Just be sure it's cited properly and doe not contain any original research. Won't bug me, I'd maybe even help.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe s/he could also write an article on "Chauvinism and WP". I know a few people who could help with that... --E4024 (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Bear with him, this guy is currently traumatised, like many hungarians, because their waterpolo men (3 times in a row and reigning olympic champions) did not even make it into the top 4 during London 2012. They just can't feel happy with their many medals, because of the shame of that perceived "national disaster". It's like the USA dropping out of basketball man's finals.91.82.37.52 (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about ranking

Let's say one country has:

4 gold, 3 silver, 1 bronze; 8 medals

and another country has:

4 gold, 1 silver, 5 bronze; 10 medals

Which country would be ranked ahead of the others? Basicly is the number of medals always irrelevant as long as one country has more of the more valuable medals? --Ilias Of Nikos Iliadis (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The country with the more silvers will be ranked ahead of those with the more total medals.
  – HonorTheKing (talk)

Most of the world, except America, ranks by gold and then silver and then bronze rather than by total medals, so silvers and bronzes would only be taken into account in ranking when two or more countries have the same number of gold medals. G-13114 (talk) 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me why the Americans decide to go against what the IOC do and use total medals? Why do they always have to be different? They're in the lead with Golds so why are they still using their system?

IOC does not have official medal count. London Olympic Committee posts medal count, but not IOC "official". Even IOC President said we do not rank countys. World media ranks countrys, most choose Gold, but USA and a few others use Total. All medals are important, as winning a medal at Olympics is very hard. So all medals mean a great deal. It is World media that puts all or nothing on Gold. 97.81.50.48 (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why? Because Americans recognize and value the accomplishments of all medal winners, not just gold medal winners. Plus, their way of ranking eliminates the ridiculousness of this:

Right, so the rest of the world are snobs and just kill every athlete that doesn't get a Gold? You are insulting almost every country in the world by your comment. And Silver and Bronze do play a part, if the golds are tied etc. Look at the tables, if America didn't have 310 million odd people you'd be about 16th with that attitude. Just be grateful that you have a huge population, while the UK at 60 million makes half of what you have.. Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't say the UK is twice as good because of its population because every country is limited in the number of athletes or teams they can send per event, often one or two. To put it this way, if the UK had 5 times the population and 5 times the elite athletes, they would not win 5 times as many medals because many of the athletes would not be allowed to participate. Hypertall (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank	NOC	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
9	Hungary (HUN)	8	4	5	17
10	Australia (AUS)	7	16	12	35

So, Australia has more than twice as many medals and four times as many silver medals, but ranks lower than Hungary because of one fewer gold medal? Huh?

And this:

Rank	NOC	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
19	North Korea (PRK)	4	0	2	6
20	Spain (ESP)	3	9	4	16

Spain has nearly three times as many medals, and nine more silver medals, but ranks lower than North Korea because of one fewer gold medal?

And this:

Rank	NOC	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
34	Switzerland (SUI)	2	1	0	3
35	Canada (CAN)	1	5	12	18

Canada has six times as many medals, but ranks lower than Switzerland because of one fewer gold medal? This shouldn't happen. 24.231.248.68 (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the reasons why it exists, I just wanted to know why specifically the USA decides against this method?! I realise WHY this method is also used just not WHY SPECIFICALLY THE US wants to be the ugly duckling and be completely different? Jeez we're not idiots here we know that the Gold isn't everything, I swear people here think we're idiots.. Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Why has this topic been allowed to return from the grave? The fact that there are clearly visible closed threads covering the same thing should be a clue that nothing is going to change. Now can we close this one too and files it with the others! Wesley Mouse 21:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's discussed at Olympic medal table why America does things differently. I don't think anyone was proposing any changes. Just asking a question. G-13114 (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you G-13114, for providing me with a mature and useful answer, without insulting any more people.. :) Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite the topic re raking above having been closed, it does not appear to me that the discussion touched upon whether legitimate links to alternative rankings can or cannot be included. I suggest that such a link would be very useful to readers of the article, and since the links I intend to include are to the articles on statistical analyses that have been done by reputable sources, I would argue that they are legitimate. If you feel it is inappropriate / should be deleted, please revert to this discussion and explain why. --Zingi (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

If you sort by total medals it doesn't sort tiebreakers properly (eg. most golds in case of tie in total medals, then most silvers). IMO it's OK if the table's sorted by one way or the other (most golds vs. most medals) as long as it's easy to sort by the other way if you wanted to. Hypertall (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Bezuidenhout, if you should happen to meet an American be sure to ask her "WHY SPECIFICALLY THE US wants to be the ugly duckling" in this matter. Maybe you'll get the answer you want or the one you deserve. Al Cook U.S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.25.203 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Gabon

Gabon can be listed as a "first medal country". Anthony Obame, silver in Taekwondo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.141.126 (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I was in the process of doing that when you posted. In the future, please cite sources when making edit requests. I was able to find some and use it as we crosspsoted. Smartyllama (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

First ever medal/first ever gold

How come the colors background indicating first ever medal/gold were removed from this table, but remain at the older ones? We should be consistent, one way or the other. Smartyllama (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

They should be removed from all the tables, we've never needed them before and they're in violation of WP:COLOUR, but as they've only been added in the last day no one's gotten around to doing this yet - Basement12 (T.C) 23:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm inclined to agree with you there. Smartyllama (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to remove this information. WP:COLOUR does not forbid the use of colour to convey information, so long as that information is also conveyed by some other means. In this case, a footnote "Country's first [gold] medal" could be used, in addition to colour. Dricherby (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Dricherby. I think that it is both useful and helpful information. I think that it should be added (back) into the table. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The text gives this information, so adding it would be in violation of COLOR as mere decoration, and adding accessibility problems. Courcelles 02:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Colors aside, someone could ad the information of first gold, after the first medal. Serbia, for example, won itss first gold as an independent NOC. Does any one know other examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.138.170 (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

New medal winning nations are in the text "Bahrain, Botswana, Cyprus, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, and Montenegro each won its first Olympic medal ever, with Grenada's being gold." All the other countries that won a gold had done so previously. Interesting spot on Serbia, I'm not sure if that is counted as a first gold as I believe the NOC is considered a continuation of the S&M NOC that competed at previous Games? - Basement12 (T.C) 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbia's first medal is mentioned in the 2008 article, so the gold could be mentioned here. 85.167.39.6 (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Serbia is SRB, and Serbia and Montenegro is SCG. 85.167.111.129 (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Error in position

Brazil should be in the 21-st spot, not Belarus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.164.168 (talk) 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Men's basketball and Men's water polo

These finals have been completed but I can't figure out if their medals have been entered. The only outstanding medals at this time is the Women's Modern Pentathlon, then it's all over. Roger (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Medal coefficient

I think we should be added "total points" column alongside total medals column Points is counted by multiplying total type of medal received by each NOCs with "medal coefficient", According to Mendeleev's periodic elements table, gold have a weight 196.9665 amu, silver have a weight 107.8682 amu and bronze 69.0624 amu (bronze is alloyed by 10% tin and 90% cooper) With bronze have a value 1.0000, silver 1.5619 and gold 2.8520. We also have PRC won 51 golds, 21 silvers and 28 bronzes and USA won 36 golds, 38 silvers and 36 bronzes, China has gotten 206.252 points and USA 198.024 points.Cristiano Toàn (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The medal totals you used are from 2008, not 2012. Phizzy 14:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rank column

Why do we have this column? It seems unnecessary, especially seeing as there are several ranking methodologies and the IOC doesn't endorse one. Why not just have the gold medal first system be the default (without ranking) and then let people sort the table as they will, seeing the ranking as they decide how to sort the table? It seems we are taking a position on something that we don't need to, and we decrease the accuracy and neutrality of the article because of it.LedRush (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

If the rank column is removed it becomes impossible to sort. Wikitables can only sort on one column at a time - unlike spreadsheets which can have a large number of nested sort keys. This is a limitation of the Wiki software, not bias or POV by editors. Roger (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks for the clarification. But couldn't we have a default sorting by number of Gold Medals (using that information for the sorting)? I'm obviously out of my element dealing with the technical aspects of the table, but this doesn't seem like it should be difficult.LedRush (talk) 14:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikitables do support multiple sort keys, though the interface to it is not very discoverable and I assume is not well known. First click on the heading for the primary key, then hold down the shift key and click on the heading for the secondary key, the tertiary key, and so forth.

You can also use another technique which you'd use in a spreadsheet program as well if you needed more sort keys than supported directly through the user interface: do successive sorts of the table starting with the least significant sort key and progressing to the most significant one. With four sort keys, this means first sorting by the quaternary sort key, then the tertiary one, then the secondary one, and finally by the primary sort key. Because the sorting algorithm breaks ties by keeping the tied rows in the same order as before the sort, this means earlier sorts will break ties for later sorts, which is exactly what is needed. isaacl (talk) 07:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Table is broken

When sorting by total medals, about 1/3 of the countries have the flag and the rank column mixed up. The best way to deal with this would be to delete the rank column per my arguments above. But regardless, this table needs fixing.LedRush (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Rowspans and rowscopes (needed for accessibility) don't play well together, it seems. The only WP:ACCESS compliant fix is to remove the rowscopes, which I've done, though obviously removing the rank would make that moot. Courcelles 04:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job. At least the table seems to work to me. However, I'd still prefer to remove the ranks.LedRush (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

42nd place

Should be Serbia and then Slovenia if u go alphabetical?!?!?! 109.121.36.173 (talk) 09:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's alphabetical by IOC country code, in this case Slovenia (SLO) comes ahead of Serbia (SRB) - Basement12 (T.C) 10:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Belorus data in the table contradicts its own article

Table says 13 medals, incl. 5 silver, and the now disqualified gold. The country article says only 2 silvers. --Mareklug ^talk 12:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

EU's gold medals, China's gold medals, US's gold medals

The third sentence of the third intro paragraph reads:

"While the USA atletes won the largest set of gold medals (46), China confirmed its status of leading sportive country (38 gold). However, if the EU competed as a single entity, its total won would be 84 gold medals [9], largely ahead of the the USA, and as much as both the USA and China golds added."

Is that stupid & pointless bragging and comparison actually necessary on an article that is supposed to be neutral? What kind of logic is that to compare a supranational entity consisting of a larger population & larger GDP to the US anyway?

Would that sentence have been included if the US hadn't won as many gold medals?

Should it also be mentioned how many gold medals were won by the African Union, Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, Eurasian Economic Community, and Association of Southeast Asian Nations if they competed as a single entity despite not being countries?

Phobosphobia (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

None of it is necessary and I've removed it - Basement12 (T.C) 20:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Well if the member states of the European Union participated at the Olympics as one team, there wouldn't have been as many athletes. E.g. instead of three medals in handball (France, Sweden and Spain), there would only be one EU medal. Furthermore people from EU cheer on their countries' athletes, not on a supernational Team EU. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorting error

When sorting back to the "rank" field, a number of countries lose their numerical rank and are sorted by alphabet (e.g., Poland, Mexico, Solvenia, etc). Any easy fix to this? Thx. 68.106.80.19 (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone readded the rowspans for countries with the same rank. As it says above, this totally ruined the sorting, and I've removed them again. Courcelles 04:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Thank you for correcting it Courcelles. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

List of 2012 Summer Olympics medal winners

Could somebody with more expertise add prose to the List of 2012 Summer Olympics medal winners page akin to List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners? Therequiembellishere (talk) 11:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead

This sentence appears at the very end of the lead: An athlete from Serbia won the first Olympic gold medal for the country as an independent NOC, having previously won medals as part of Serbia and Montenegro and Yugoslavia. I am not quite sure what this sentence is trying to say. But, what it does say is this. There is an athlete (Milica Mandić); Mandić won the first Olympic gold medal for Serbia as an independent NOC; and the very same athlete (Milica Mandić) also previously won Olympic medals as part of Serbia and Montenegro; and the very same athlete (Milica Mandić) also previously won Olympic medals as part of Yugoslavia. I do not think that this is accurate. Milica Mandić's article does not seem to list all of these achievements. So, I think that the sentence is attempting to say something else ... but I am not sure what. Can someone fix this? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that what the sentence is trying to say is this: the athletes from the country of Serbia are now under their own NOC (the NOC called "Serbia"); and the athletes from the country of Serbia used to play under the NOC called "Serbia and Montenegro"; and the athletes from the country of Serbia used to play under the NOC called "Yugoslavia". Is this correct? Is that the intended meaning of the sentence? If so, the sentence needs to be reworded. As it is currently worded, the sentence is referring to one specific athlete from Serbia (Milica Mandić) ... and not to the athletes in general, as a whole, from Serbia. The Serbian athletes, as a whole, in general, played under several different NOCs (I assume). But, this specific athlete (Mandić) did not do so, as far as I can tell. Does anyone know for sure? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I have changed the wording. Will do the same at the 2008 article. 88.88.163.29 (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the fix! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Montenegrins have won gold medals as nationals of Serbia and Montenegro and/or Yugoslavia. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You can see and read those in the Montenegro at the Olympics. It answers your question.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, HonorTheKing. If the Wiki-article is correct, then Montenegrins haven't won gold medals for Serbia and Montenegro - except for Igor Vušurović and Goran Vujević which were part of the volleyball team in Sydney. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

World map

On the world map that shows medal achievements, someone changed the wording for the "red" legend. It now states: "Red represents countries without a acknowledge NOC, their athlets competed as Independent Olympic Athletes". First of all, this has several grammatical errors. Second, even if this is true ... those athletes either won gold, silver, bronze, or no medals ... and therefore would still be covered by the other four color legends. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I changed it back to what it was before. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Continental Table

Should there be a summarised continental table ranking the continents? I think it makes for interesting reading and shows the geographic power bases and in particular how the continental rankings have changed over time. Should also be applied to other Olympic Games medal tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerow (talk • contribs) 13:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No, as it is original research. 88.88.164.41 (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Recent Spate of Vandalism

The medal count table is currently rife with inconsistencies and patent nonsense (India shows 20,000 silver medals). To someone familiar with the history of this article: to whence might this be reverted to correct this swiftly? Deepskyfrontier (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2012 Summer Olympics medal table

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2012 Summer Olympics medal table's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "daily":

• From Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Women's 3000 metres steeplechase: "Ghribi receives Olympic and world gold medals". Daily Mail. Retrieved 13 July 2016.
• From France: Wahlgren, Eric (14 November 2009). "France's obesity crisis: All those croissants really do add up, after all". Dailyfinance.com. Retrieved 21 July 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Post-drug test results update

This list is not updated with the redistributed medals after doping tests. Someone please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.172.234 (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference of doping in wrestling

I saw someone removed one reference about doping report in wrestling which hasn't made into official announcement to redistribution of medals (the part from "On 27 July 2016" to "Dehydrochlormethyltestosterone"). I fully agree unofficial change should not be included in the medal count and the list; however, I think it's appropriate to leave the references there since it's related to possible change in the future and may be helpful for editors later.

If we are really going to remove it (I don't have strong opinion on it), at least be consistent: the whole paragraph about wrestling doping starting from "On 15 June 2016" should be removed, since they're all (except Ukraine's bronze that has been mentioned in another paragraphe) not confirmed in term of medal redistribution. Thanks! --fireattack (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Medal table note?

Does the following note still apply for the medal table? "Note. The table includes the official changes in medal standings, but does not include the possible changes announced in 2015 (see below). IOC has not yet decided on these cases and has not yet stripped the medals." Jeff in CA (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think already does not apply.Nitobus (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wrestling 125kg freestyle

As we know IOC disqualified both finalists in this event, and UWW originally (and quickly) reallocated the medals. source and our table is based on that. but that was premature and apparently there were some protests and etc. there was nothing in UWW rules about this situation when both finalists get disqualified, but in their new version of rules, they award two gold medals in this case and apparently IOC applies the new 2019 rules to what happened in 2012 , IOC website shows both Ghasemi and Makhov as gold medalists ! source. even though I know no medal is re-distributed yet. but I assume IOC stands above UWW and we have to update the medal table with 1 more gold for Russia (and 1 less silver). but since I wasn't sure I thought I could ask here. is it possible that IOC just made a mistake in its website ? Mohsen1248 (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It is a very good question. Month ago I asked this question to IOC and UWW and later to facebook of WrestRUS. IOC replied: "olympic.org is correct regarding the re-ranking of this event and reflect the current ranking with two gold medals". UWW did not answer. WrestRUS replied: "Из Федерации нам об этом пока не сообщали, как только у нас появится информация - мы сообщим об этом на сайте и в социальных сетях (From the Federation we have not yet been informed about this, as soon as we have information - we will inform about this on the website and in social networks)". A very strange situation, looks like the IOC itself redistributed the medals and did not notify either UWW or WrestRUS :) Nitobus (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That's good they answered you back, I usually don't get an answer lol so you are telling me it was there months ago ? I thought I checked that website couple weeks ago and it was different but I'm not sure, maybe it was months ago. this is weird because per my previous experiences IOC website is the last one to show the medal changes !

I know the Iranian point of view in this matter, actually it became a controversy (I'm not going into details) Ghasemi is upset he didn't receive his medal yet. This is a report from Iran NOC about this, you probably can use the google translator but there are 3 letters in English inside the article. the 2nd one is IOC's response in December 2019. in December 2019 they said Ghasemi has to wait. the 3rd letter is from Iran few days ago. apparently IOC didn't answer that one yet. (or at least they didn't publish it)

but there is another thing, exactly when we heard about the doping (July 2019) I checked UWW rulebook to see who is going to win the gold medal, there was absolutely nothing in their rules about this situation when both finalists test positive for doping! I don't know based on what UWW awarded the gold to Ghasemi, and silver to Makhov. but interestingly when I checked the recent UWW rulebook there is a paragraph about this. in this case, they award two gold medals and no silver. so I think UWW is well aware of the story, they even modified their rules for a situation like that. maybe IOC website was just too quick this time, maybe UWW will have the same result but after the end of legal procedure! but still I don't know what we should do here, Olympic.org is the main source and it was never wrong (maybe until this time) Mohsen1248 (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked this question to IOC on May 21, so on this date changes to their website have already been made. What we should do here? I think it would be good to wait for at least one more confirmation from other source (UWW, Rus, Iran). For me personally, the stopper is the lack of any information from Russian sources, they usually react very quickly if the case is about Russian athletes. Nitobus (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense, I know when Bakhtiyar Akhmedov received his medal that made the headlines. my guess is there were some talks between UWW, IOC and Russia about rules being silent in such case. maybe they decided to give joint gold medals but it had to go through all those lengthy legal procedures but someone in IOC was caresuless and already updated the website, I think after all they will award two gold medals. (that just makes sense) but it will take months, and until that it's better to leave it the way it is right now. Makhov himself failed a doping test recently, I don't know if this matters or not, IOC apparently has no problem anymore to give medals to athletes with previous doping history. I'm sure Iran NOC will make it public whenever they receive anything important from the IOC. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to thank both of you, Nitobus and Mohsen1248, for always being up-to-date, diligent and honest about the counts and attribution of medals and the history of events held at Multi-sport Games, such as the Olympics and World Games. I know that when I see your names as editors, I can always trust the results. Kudos for all of your interest and hard work. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nitobus: I just heard an interview with Iran Wrestling Federation president (who was also in contact with Russian Wrestling president Mamiashvili), he claims IOC intervened here and since UWW rules were silent in cases like this. after some discussions in December 2019 they decided to award two gold medals (and made cases like that clear and written in UWW rule book) he expects this to be official and public in next IOC board. in short it seems IOC really decided to give two gold medals but only some paperwork is still left. and it seems someone in IOC was too quick to update the website but after all that wasn't wrong. Mohsen1248 (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Today appeared the first confirmation from a Russian source: The Russian wrestler Makhov is recognized as the champion of the 2012 Olympics. His opponent was disqualified for doping. Quote: "… In this regard, Makhov and Iranian Comel Gasemi are recognized as champions. Both athletes will receive gold medals instead of bronze …". Nitobus (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC) And official info: WrestRUS News Nitobus (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

so I think it's better to update the page (and other pages regarding this matter) because as you can see others already started to make edits and will make a mess. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree. And one more source: Olympic Analytics Nitobus (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

And this is getting funny, if you check that link again, they reverted their changes, they are both still "bronze medalists" ! that makes sense based on IOC's new response to Iran NOC. it seems they have to test everybody else (maybe rank 3 to 10) before upgrading their ranking. I think it's better to not change anything, after all if nobody else fails the doping test they will award the medals like that. Mohsen1248 (talk) 20:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

IOC updated results: [1]. Case is closed. Nitobus (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

List of possible changes in medal standings

@Birdienest81: Difference between revisions

What does this list have to do with WP:Crystal ??? It was a verified list of cases, when athletes were already disqualified, but medals had not yet been redistributed. So it was not a thinking about the future, but a list of actual cases. Each case can lead in the future to either the cancellation of the disqualification in court, or to the redistribution of medals, but this is not a reason to delete the verified list of actual cases as such. Nitobus (talk) 12:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

By my understanding, the only verified fact for those cases is that the doping medalists have been disqualified and their medals have been stripped. However, there is not yet any decision by the IOC whether the involved medals will be redistributed. If you look at this article, there had been several events where the stripped medals were decided by IOC to leave vacant instead of reallocation, though they all happened only on or before the 2008 Olympics; but this does not mean that it is a must for IOC to redistribute the medals since the 2012 Olympics. Everything should just follow the Olympic official website. Therefore I think the act of Birdienest81 at that time is not totally wrong. However I think it is better to use hidden mode instead of completely deleting the contents. 215XBus (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear 215XBus, your understanding is perfect. However, the situation with the medal tables up to 2008 and 2012 is slightly different. Indeed, some medals were not redistributed up to 2008, however, in all such cases, the IOC or international federations issued an appropriate clarification, that they will not be redistributed in future. Thus, we could write in the main table something like this: "the meadals in this event will not be reallocated", and this will fully clarify the appropriate case. In 2012 is not so. Since 2012, there are cases when medals are not redistributed, and there is no any decision that they will not be redistributed. Thus, the attentive reader (for example, me :) ), having studied the first table, may ask the question: where are the lost medals? The second table gives information that serves as an answer to this question, so in my opinion it is valuable information. Nitobus (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is that a few editors treated them as that those medals have been confirmed to be reallocated but just not known when, so that they added or promoted those medals in the corresponding athletes' or representing teams' articles. However in fact IOC has not made any decision yet. And indeed Wikipedia has rules that everything must be verifiable and provided with reliable source. Since what the table represented is just a guess and possibility, and there are no online sources saying that this will happen, indeed the table may violate those rules. I suppose hiding the contents using <!--XXX--> is the best, so that while the information cannot be shown to the public, wiki editors can still see them during the edit, so if finally those medals are indeed reallocated, wiki editors can just move that to the official cases section. 215XBus (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

In general, I don't protest against using ! - - for this table. However, I disagree with the evaluation of this table as what the table represented is just a guess. You yourself write that the table is based on two facts: 1) doping medalists have been disqualified; 2) IOC has not made any decision yet about redistribution. And if even with the presence of information in this table, few editors are trying "to redistribute medals", then in the absence of this information they "will redistribute" these medals all the more. So I don't think this will improve the situation with the incorrect edits, rather the opposite. Nitobus (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

(pinged by Birdienest81) I reviewed this list during FLC, but I am otherwise uninvolved with this article. As an outsider, I agree with 215XBus; unless you can find a source arguing that the medals will likely be redistributed, the table is entirely WP:OR and should be removed. That's why WP:CRYSTAL was invoked during the edit; if you can't find a source to predict a future event, then predicting it yourself is OR. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with RunningTiger123. 215XBus (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As checked from the Olympic official website again, they have just updated information of some of the involving athletes (say Erik Kynard, Derek Drouin, Mutaz Essa Barshim) with the medals promoted, so those are no longer predictions now. 215XBus (talk) 03:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

While it's nice that some of these changes seem to be showing up on the official Olympics website, neither that site's medal table nor the provided source here lists the U.S. as having won 47 gold medals yet (which would back the potential Kynard upgrade; I haven't checked the other items). Given the apparent verifiability issues involved, I'd suggest not changing the main table wholesale until we get a source to back the new numbers. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not mind following Giants2008's suggestion. 215XBus (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Five London 2012 events to have medals, diplomas reallocated

12 Nov 2021 Five London 2012 events to have medals, diplomas reallocated

• 1. Olympic Games London 2012 – Athletics – Men’s High Jump ATHLETICS HIGH JUMP MEN RESULTS
• 2. Olympic Games London 2012 – Athletics – Women’s High Jump ATHLETICS HIGH JUMP WOMEN RESULTS
• 3. Olympic Games London 2012 – Athletics – Women’s Long Jump ATHLETICS LONG JUMP WOMEN RESULTS
• 4. Olympic Games London 2012 – Canoe – Men’s Canoe Sprint (C-1) 200m CANOE SPRINT C-1 200M (CANOE SINGLE) MEN RESULTS
• 5. Olympic Games London 2012 - Wrestling – Men’s Freestyle 120kg WRESTLING FREESTYLE 120KG MEN RESULTS

Nitobus (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Original Rank versus Now

So many changes.

I’d like to see the original tally… at 13 August 2012.

I suppose I can get it from this article’s "View History", but I’d much rather see columns (in one table) with "original" and "now". That means an extra 3 columns (4 with Total, 5 with original rank).

Perhaps make it a "see also", or a stub?

MBG02 (talk) 06:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

History at [2] 12 August 2012.

MBG02 (talk) 07:03, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

5 extra columns (gold, silver, bronze, total, rank), and (I would argue) an extra row (header's for original table, and "adjusted". This isn't necessarily a problem. My oppoisition to this proposal comes from it being WP:UNDUE. The changes come because athletes get disqualified. How many sources continue to hold the disqualifed medal winners in equal regard? I don't know, but my guess would be hardly any, and therefore it would be WP:UNDUE (or WP:OR if none do it) for us to do so [hold the disqualifed medal winners in equal regard]. SSSB (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I like the argument that it (appears to) give undue regard… but I see it as highlighting the disregard they (or the nation) should get.

And the amazing effect: Uzbekistan down 29 spots, Bahrain up 29 spots, Chinese Taipei up 15…. Russia didn’t move.

I first posted (here) before I saw the last table. Now (I'm changing my request) I reckon just the former and current ranks is good (added at left, to this table). I was pondering adding it (and seeing if it survived), but although it looks easy (according to Help:Table and Google) I know it's not…. for me. Re HM sources: I play TriviaCrack (a lot). They claim that Australia came 10th.

Also...

Although London is a much longer list than others List of stripped Olympic medals, I suppose it'd be dumb to just do London.

I got my answer by copying wiki into Google sheets.

MBG02 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)