Template talk:Footer Olympic Champions - Artistic Gymnastics - Individual All-Around - Women

I just un-did MartinYNA's edit. The only place to discuss this is here on the template's talk page - MartinYNA has neither userpage nor user talkpage.

This template, as well as all of the similar templates (for World All-Around Champions, World Individual Event Champions, Olympic Individual Event Champions) does not state *anywhere* that the individuals named on the templates were medalists. It states that they were champions. In nearly all cases, the individuals are medalists, but not always. At certain times earlier in the Olympics, it was more likely the case that somebody who got the highest score in 'something' might not have gotten a medal - that something might or might not be an individual event. But we still have the record that those individuals, medalists or not, were champions or first-place winners.

But doing the research, across all Olympic sports and information of those sports on Wikipedia, to see if there is a 100% match between those who were actually awarded a medal and those who are referred to as a 'champion' on Wikipedia, and then getting a group consensus on Wikipedia protocol to adhere to that record, and then seeing to it that all Wikipedia information would conform to that decision, would be a gigantic task.

In the case of this template, I *clearly* stated that the individuals I added from the pre-1952 years were not medalists. Part of the reason they were added was because their male counterparts had been receiving such medals since 1896. Also, technically, nothing separates the achievements of Trudi Meyer in 1936 and Zdenka Honsova in 1948 from those of Maria Gorokhovakaya in 1952, Larissa Latynina in 1956 and 1960, and Vera Caslavska in 1964 and 1968, other than that Gorokhovskaya, Latynina, and Caslavska were awarded medals and Meyer and Honsova weren't. From 1952-1968, there was no separate all-around competition in gymnastics at the Summer Olympic Games - that didn't happen until 1972. The highest total scores from the team competition were added up in the 5 Olympiads from 1952-1968 in order to determine the all-around champion at those games. If this had been done at the Olympiads before 1952, Meyer and Honsova would have gotten those medals. The *only* difference, as it pertains to this template, between the pre-1952 champions and those from 1952 to 1968 was that medals were given out to those from 1952-1968, and were not given out prior to that.

Frankly, not recognizing Trudi Meyer and Zdenka Honsova in this template, yet continuing to recognize Gustave Sandras, Julius Lenhart, Alberto Braglia, Giorgio Zampori, Leon Stukelj, Georges Miez, Romeo Neri, Alfred Schwarzmann and Veikko Huhtanen in the male counterpart to this template smacks of sexism and only reinforces the sexism that women had to bear in the sport before 1952. If Meyer and Honsova disappear from this template, the names of all of those men I just mentioned should disappear from the male counterpart to this template. And if that were to happen, I think that a whole bunch of people would object.QuakerIlK (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding non-official winners and years with no competition

We're setting a precedent for many other templates here. The question is simple: should years with unofficial winners and even no actual competition be included in this template? User:QuakerIlK believes we need to recognize all the athletes, and while I generally agree, I undid his edits because there's no consensus to include those years. Other disciplines with similar issues only display the winners (Template:Footer Olympic Champions Bobsleigh Four-man, Template:Footer Olympic Champions 800 m Women, Template:Footer Olympic Champions 200 m Individual Medley Women, Template:Footer Olympic Champions 200 m Individual Medley Men and many others. @QuakerIlK: MartinYNA (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Here are other templates where years where there were no competitions are included: Template:Footer Olympic Champions All-Around Men, Template:Footer Olympic Champions Pommel Horse Men, Template:Footer Olympic Champions Rings Men, Template:Footer_Olympic_Champions_Vault_Men, Template:Footer Olympic Champions Parallel Bars Men, Template:Footer Olympic Champions Artistic Gymnastics Men TC, Template:NavigationWorldChampionsArtisticGymnasticsMen'sPommelHorse, Template:Footer Olympic Champions Horizontal Bar Men, Template:Footer Olympic Champions Floor Men. Moreover, as I already told you before, THE MAIN TEMPLATE FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES includes years/Olympiads where there are no Olympiads. What I am doing with this template DOES NOT establish precedent. Precedent HAS ALREADY BEEN SET, and at a level far higher than my edits.

I also have to ask you *why* you are focusing *only* on this template, whereas there are several others, as I have just pointed out, that do the same thing or something very similar, ESPECIALLY THE MAIN TEMPLATE FOR THE OLYMPIC GAMES

Moroever, by continuing to make deletions unilaterally without "Respond[ing] to all disputes or grievances, in the first instance, by approaching the editor or editors concerned and explaining which of their edits you object to and why you object [and...]Us[ing] the article talk page or their user talk page to do so, you violate the very first item of policy in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes. Additionally, if you are to look at the second item of policy ( Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Follow_the_normal_protocol ) you will read the following. "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page. To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." - YOUR ACTIONS VIOLATE NEARLY EVERY SINGLE CLAUSE OF THAT PARAGRAPH.

Enough said. STOP!QuakerIlK (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. Although I'd argue 1916 Summer Olympics, 1940 Summer Olympics, 1944 Summer Olympics are included because there are actual articles for them, I acknowledge that other gymnastics templates include years with no competitions. MartinYNA (talk) 06:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.170.72.112 (talk)

Removal of unofficial/proxy results

The inclusion of Meyer and Honsová on this template is inappropriate. The IOC is the final authority on Olympic events, medalists, and champions. The IOC does not recognize Individual All-Around competitions for women before 1952. Furthermore, the IOC does not recognize the highest-scoring participant in the team competition as the winner of a non-existent individual competition. This is not an issue of sexism by editors of Wikipedia; the history of the IOC may be wrought with it, but that is not for us to "fix". Previous points concerning the inclusion of male champions dating to 1900 are invalid because the IOC recognizes those athletes to be Olympic Champions. The women who were erroneously included in this template did not win a competition titled "Individual All-Around" at the Olympic Games, and therefore do not belong. EditorSeto (talk) 07:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

EditorSeto,

1) Wikipedia provides information compliant with *as well as in addition to* that of the official IOC results. The IOC does *not* have ultimate and absolute authority over *all* relevant content on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an open, global project. You are writing as if it is a project that *belongs* to the IOC, which is does not.

2) Additionally, you are not completely correct when you say "Furthermore, the IOC does not recognize the highest-scoring participant in the team competition as the winner of a non-existent individual competition." because in the sport of artistic gymnastics, there was no separate competition for women (or men) in the all-around until 1972, yet gymnasts were awarded all-around medals for their results in the team competition.

3) These edits do not "fix" any sexism, whatsoever, they merely provide more complete information, which is a chief aim of Wikipedia. Because of its open format and the vastly increased capacity of Wikipedia over regular print encyclopedia formats, there is a lot of room for creating additional information above and beyond traditional print formats.

Additionally, I notice that you are a new editor with a total of only 5 edits. Between this account and my previous one ("Miloluvr"), I have tallied over 1,000 edits. Also, Maxim is another editor who apparently did not disagree with me on this, and he/she has made literally thousands of edits. If you are as new to Wikipedia as you are, then you should be made aware of Wikipedia's basic policies and guidelines. Please familiarize yourself with those for future reference. By making edits that are deletions, rather than additions, moreover with a demonstrated lack of understanding of the issue in multiple areas as you have, you violate essential core tenets of Wikipedia. Newcomers may sometimes do this. But once they are made aware of the basic policies and guidelines, they will then be expected to adhere to them more mindfully.QuakerIlK (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

QuakerIlK,

I apologize that we don't seem to be seeing eye to eye, but I'm afraid that you are wrong on several points. While Wikipedia may expand on some topics in that manner, the IOC is law with regard to who is and who is not an Olympic champion. As this is a list of Olympic champions, what the IOC says goes, regardless of your opinion on the subject. You will also note that I said "non-existent individual competition" in that sentence you quoted. Before 1952, no such competition was held, whether combined with the team event or not. The competitions and championships that you attempted to install in this template were fabricated; at best a retroactive application of later logistics for competition that the IOC does not recognize. No medals were awarded for an "individual all-around" event for women before 1952 - the competition did not exist. You can attempt to lecture me about the differences between medals and being the winner, but since the event did not exist at all, it does not matter.

With regard to your sexism commentary, yes, your edits absolutely attempt to "fix sexism," something you alluded to yourself in earlier comments. You stated that the difference in the recording of men's and women's champions "smacks of sexism and only reinforces the sexism that women had to bear in the sport before 1952." Your issue is with the IOC, not with Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not your venue to fix sexism. The reason that no one would agree with removing the male champions from 1900-1948 is because the IOC recognizes them. The same works in reverse; we do not list imaginary women's champions before 1952 because the IOC does not recognize them. I see your edits on other pages, adding this information when it is both unnecessary and inappropriate. You do not get to arbitrarily assign the title "Olympic champion" to someone who is not recognized as such, with the same going for Gold/Silver/Bronze medalists. This remains true regardless of any footnotes applied explaining your rationale. Please refrain.

Speaking of edits, it does not matter how many edits I have as long as my edits are sound (though I know you believe they are not). This is not my first Wikipedia account, and I am certainly familiar with high-horse editors throwing around Wikipedia maxims in an attempt to belittle or discourage new editors passive aggressively. I have returned the favor to those editors by reminding them that, as stated within Wikipedia's guidelines, those same guidelines are mutable when necessary. Furthermore, not everything is what it seems. While I appreciate you attempting to "educate" me on Wikipedia, trying to disregard my opinion based on the number of edits on my account is a pretty poor way to go about it. Number of edits is not a qualifier for quality, whether you think my edits are or not.

That leads me to the single most laughable thing you said - and I laughed out loud. You said that I had "a demonstrated lack of understanding of the issue in multiple areas." I did not just stumble upon a page with this template and decide to make an uneducated scene about it. It's none of your business, but I study sport history at the graduate level, with specific emphasis on the Olympic Games. I do not claim to be an expert at all; that would be insulting to the actual experts. However, not only did I know immediately that the version of this template that you offered was wrong, but I also researched the topic to make sure I was correct before changing it back - I was not just spitballing.

The template should stay as is - official results only. EditorSeto (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I have modified the template again, removing the names of individuals who were never officially all-around champion (and whom I never did state were actually/officially all-around champions).

There are a number of things in your response, and the collective overall criticism you have given with regard to this subject, to which I could respond, but I will refrain, except for responding to this - When you say "Your issue is with the IOC, not with Wikipedia", I have to take exception to that because it is almost as if you are putting words into my mouth and saying that I have gripes with the IOC about this, which I never said. First of all, if you could be more clear about what exactly the issue that I would have with the IOC would be, then I could respond more precisely. I can only guess that it has to do with the non-inclusion of women in the sport at the olympics before 1928, the interruption of their inclusion in 1932, and the lack of individual distinction (medal-awarding) before 1952. The non-inclusion of women in this sport at the Olympic games before 1928 is certainly far from unique across all sports that had been included at the Olympic Games to that point - it just wasn't in the worldwide culture yet, unfortunately. Moreover, the format of women's competition in the sport once it had been introduced in 1928, interrupted in 1932, and then included again in 1936 and 1948, is something that was probably made manifest by a multi-layered decision-making process which would probably have included the International Federation of Gymnastics, if not also other governing bodies. That doesn't mean, however, that my "problem" is with them, either. I don't recall ever having been specific in attributing blame regarding this subject, and if I did, then I now retract such blame.QuakerIlK (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Your failure to respond to my criticisms is not an action taken from a position of strength - confirmed by your immediate edits. I'm reverting them as soon as I finish typing this; I hope you do not begin warring with me on this. There is no need to have five lines of "not included;" it's especially unnecessary to identify that women in particular did not compete. There are several templates for the Olympics in other disciplines that do not make mention of gaps in their inclusion in the program, as was mentioned by another that you shouted down. The main template for the Olympics is just one of a number of templates - furthermore, it serves a very particular purpose that is not necessarily applicable to these smaller templates. It seems to me that it would be better for all Olympic gymnastics templates to align with all of the other disciplines, not the other way around.

Before your original edits in December, this template had been untouched for two-and-a-half years. The question at hand is whether your superfluous information is acceptable and should be added, not whether the reversion attempted by multiple editors now should stand. A proper consensus cannot be made here in this talk page, I fear, and therefore it should stay as it was in 2018 - the most recent time in which the template was deemed acceptable - until such time.

If it felt like I was putting words in your mouth, it's because I was saying the words that you were dancing around. Based on what you did respond to, you seem to already know what your gripes are - you spelled them out quite effectively - and therefore you should know why you are wrong in making these changes. You wish to go back and recognize those who were overshadowed - that's apparent in all of your edits, not just here but everywhere. I'm not telling you that these womens' achievements don't matter; on the contrary, it's fantastic that they got to compete, and not as just a sideshow. I'm just here to tell you that history does not entertain this sort of retconning. It doesn't matter that Zdeňka Honsová scored the highest individually in the 1948 women's team competition. The only thing Honsová won at those games was a gold medal in the team event - nothing more. It's great that FIG had a plethora of women's events at the time - the Olympics did not. Your previous edits were inappropriate, and your current edits are unnecessary. EditorSeto (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This is the main Wikipedia template for the Olympic Games, itself. If you will consult the talk page for that template, you will see that more than 5 years ago, at 16:13 on 18 June 2015 (UTC), editor Jmj713 removed the names of the Olympic host cities and reasons for cancellation in the name of being able to make the template one that is "parse[d] quickly". On 13:56, 31 August 2015‎ editor Izkala reverted that edit, and all Summer Olympic Games (including ones cancelled and not actually held) have remained on that template since, for over 5 years, as well as the reasons for their cancellation. Thus, that template covers all of the Olympic games (held OR cancelled), provides some articulation of information about each games (held OR cancelled, and if cancelled *why*), and is therefore complete, fully informative, and fully cross-referential, as is the template to which this talk page is dedicated. This template that you are arguing about parallels those essentials of being fully complete, fully informative, and fully cross-referential with all of the other templates for Artistic Gymnastics Champions at the Olympic games (men OR women), as well as the main template/NavigationBox for the Olympics, themselves. QuakerIlK (talk) 09:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, here are 3 other sports templates that articulate gaps in competition:

• Template:Footer Olympic Champions Greco-Roman wrestling light heavyweight

• Template:Footer Olympic Champions Boxing Featherweight

• Template:Footer Olympic Champions Judo Heavyweight Men

Are you going to go after those templates, also? Why are you so concerned only about this template, and not the 13 other Olympic Champions in Artistic Gymnastics templates, the 3 templates that I mentioned above, as well as, most importantly and authoritatively, the main overaching Wikipedia Template for all of the Olympics, themselves? QuakerIlK (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I'm aware of what purpose the main template serves. You will find that it is not the same purpose served by these minor templates. That template serves as an overview of all planned Olympics in every Olympiad. These are lists of winners. It's a ludicrous idea to remove the names of the host cities from that template - that's obvious. Please stop making a false equivalence.

It's very clear you didn't read about all of those events before you listed them. In G-R wrestling, there was no gold medal awarded in 1912 because the final was declared a draw. It's painfully obvious that 1912 belongs in the template, though, as there was supposed to be a winner - unlike women's individual and apparatus gymnastics before 1952. The other two, by my standards, yes, would be up for debate. I am so concerned with this template because 1) it's the first one I saw and 2) it had such egregious errors that I could not allow them to stand. As for the rest of them, you mean all the other templates you've edited yourself in the last two days? Yes, I'll be going to fix those as soon as this is resolved. EditorSeto (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: I'm not 100% sure what this dispute is about. I'm not seeing "Meyer" or "Honsova" in the diffs. Is there a particular edit/revert to look at? If it's about those first five lines, the 1896–1948 'not included', my initial reaction was to get rid of the clutter and either remove them or reduce them to a single line. However, as I went to look at editing practices on this, there seems to be a great deal of liberty with navboxes and I'm not finding an easy answer.

One editor stated: this is a list of Olympic champions, what the IOC says goes Actually, this is not a list, this is a navigation template, the purpose of which is to provide links to related articles which share a topical theme. There are various precedents for including links which do not fit a strict list-like interpretation (e.g.:Template:Caribbean topic makes room to include Bermuda which is outside of the Caribbean) but I feel that these should be clearly differentiated, perhaps as a different |groupx=.

Wikipedia:Navigation template is only an explanatory supplement (not a guideline), but here is some of its advice:

• WP:EXISTING notes that Navigation templates provide navigation between existing articles and Unlinked text should be avoided. Essentially, don't list things which are clearly not notable enough to have an article. If you have to use a lot of text to explain why something is related to the navtemplate's topic, then the relationship may not be strong enough to warrant inclusion.
• If the articles are not established as related by reliable sources in the actual articles, then it is probably not a good idea to interlink them. That might be grounds for removal, depending on sources.

I wish I had a more definitive answer. If you cannot reach a consensus, then the best thing might be to call a request for comment since this could affect numerous other Olympic navtemplates. This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it is helpful. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The timestamp for the original edit is 03:10, 3 December 2020‎. It is, admittedly, different now, but everything on the talkpage stems from that edit. EditorSeto (talk) 02:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Follow up: It occurs to me that I didn't give a strong opinion of my own. I'm going to reaffirm my initial reaction to remove the 'not included' entries. The nav template is essentially there to de-clutter the See also section and provide a group of associated links which are useful for readers of all articles on which the template appears. I don't feel that the 'not included' years are needed for completeness since they have a negative or absence of association to the topic. I think the 'not included' year articles can be found relatively easily through the other links and don't need to be linked directly. Again, this is a non-binding third opinion. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)