Talk:Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Olympics

4x4

Why are more than the four competitors who raced in events like swimming listed in the medal boxes?Correctron (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Because they were awarded a medal. Hg03u (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

But they didn't swim in the event. Don't you think it'd be handy to reflect that?Correctron (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

They swam in the heats and I guess that is deemed enough for them to receive a medal. If you want to reflect that go on. I can't think of any way of reflecting that without adding too much clutter (times were already removed from the page and footnotes are just clumsy). Hg03u (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that they shouldn't share the World Record. So at least that would be an argument to reflect the fact as you suggested. Hg03u (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is when you see "4x4" you expect to see 4 names as it is not considered in the same category as team sports such as basketball where extra members are expected. The list should use asterisks or something. The WR thing makes it so much more awkward. This list should just have who won the medals not not who received the medals. For teams such as rugby 7s it should link to the team page and not an ungodly list of names.Correctron (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Add asterics and notes, as it was made in Swimming at the 2016 Summer Olympics. 178.94.167.39 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Summary Tables

Should we also minimize the summary tables also, they are kinda of making it pointless to minimize anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers (talk • contribs) 03:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• No, summary tables are the main information for the day. 178.94.167.39 (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The minimization would help users to make it easy to access what day they want, with out the summaries in the way, and for the guest comment, it really wouldn't matter if we minimized or not, they could just click open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JJBers (talk • contribs) 15:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, I think now, it's a good idea due to big size of the article. See now the realisation of your proposition. 178.94.167.39 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Please review MOS:COLLAPSE. I have been reminded of this guideline, which was actually in place back on August 2016: [1]: "[they] should not conceal article content", which it is actually doing. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Bloated

The page is now becoming bloated and is more comprehensive than summary. It's already a bigger page size than the 2012 article, with only half of the Games gone. Maybe it can be split into two pages? Thoughts. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I think this page is only bigger than four years ago because of the addition of the silver and bronze medalists in the tables, more prose on the various stats and results than merely repeating the medal tables in a redundant way, and still nobody has bothered to adequately update Days 14, 15 & Day 16 of the 2012 page. Of course, it does not help when the 2016 Olympics have more events and sports than in 2012. Maybe the group/early stage results should be removed first before thinking about a split. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see the "consensus" to add bronze and silver was made with the "help" of a couple of IP editors. Who then disappeared. Odd that. Agree that should be the start point to trim the cruft, but it looks like the damage has been done and cleaning up their mess is too late. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The article now has many "The time allocated for running scripts has expired" errors and the article needs to be pruned or split, or the module doing a lot of the work needs to be enhanced. The module is called 3912 times mainly for the cute country flags. Discussion about the module is at Template talk:Country alias#Time expired. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Are there any editors in 2019 with suggestions of shortening this article? Any objections to removing silver and bronze medallists? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Split

I see that an IP recently reverted the page back, which I assume because there was a lack of real consensus among multiple editors on the Bloated thread above or any previous discussion on what to specifically do. However, the page is still long in terms of the size rule WP:SIZERULE, clocking in over 468 kb and currently the 12th longest page on Wikipedia. But it is also reliant on numerous flag and collapsible table templates. No amount of collapsible tables (they are currently disabled on the mobile version due to MOS:COLLAPSE issues, leaving them expanded by default as seen here) or removing templates due to "running scripts has expired" errors, or adding more subsections for more section editing, is going to solve loading and saving issues. This needs to be split. (Of course whatever consensus eventually happens on Chronological summary of the 2020 Summer Olympics would likely be applied here, since there are more events in the Tokyo games than there were in 2016) Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging any participant who had previously commented in 2016 (here or here) on the collapsible tables (now discouraged per MOS:COLLAPSE) or on the page size in the Bloated thread above: @Onetwothreeip, Johnuniq, Lugnuts, JJBers, Eugen Simion 14, Jivjov, and Juve2000: Unfortunately, there's not a good way to contact any unregistered IP user who participated, assuming it is the same people from 2016. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The February 2019 technical discussion is now at Template talk:Country alias/Archive 1#Time expired. It appears that I did quite a lot of changes at that time which allow this article to work without the errors that occurred back then. The cute icons and flags strike me as silly but sports people seem to like them and so long as they are not causing template-limit errors I don't have an opinion on what should happen here. The simplest would be to leave it alone, now that it works. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)