Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics

Latest comment: 2 hours ago by Fyunck(click) in topic Russian and Belarusian Flags
WikiProject iconOlympics Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Olympics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Olympics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

 Welcome to the WikiProject Olympics talk page 

Discussion Alerts Assessment Manual of Style Peer review
Here you can discuss with other users about general questions and issues involving the project. Here you can be updated on important changes in the workflow status of articles tagged by this project. Here you can check the project ratings statistics, learn how to assess articles, or request us an assessment. Here you can follow the project guidelines to help you create, expand, and format articles. Here you can ask the project membership to perform a review on any of its tagged articles.
Olympic Games
100 days left
Milan & Cortina
660 days left
Los Angeles
1549 days left
2119 days left


To start a new discussion section, please click here

Good article reassessment for Olympic Games ceremony edit

Olympic Games ceremony has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Move of Equestrian to "Equestrian Events" edit

Hello, just cross posting this discussion [1]

Back in December based on a few events Equestrian was moved to Equestrian events. Per WP:COMMONNAME and what the IOC calls the sport, Equestrian should be used. I am reopening this discussion here. Please comment! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  • Personally, I prefer "Equestrianism at the ... ". As you can see if you follow the link, there is actually an article with that exact name. "Equestrian" does not make any sense here; an equestrian is either the person riding the horse, i.e. the word is a noun – or it's an adjective, like in equestrian events. And "Equestrian events at the ... " is bad too. It's like "Football[ish] events at the ... ". There was not much participation in the previous RM. I suggest we go with "Equestrianism at the ... ". HandsomeFella (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The articles should be moved back to "Equestrian events..." per the consensus of the previous discussion, which cannot be unilaterally put aside and overruled. And notifications of this discussion need to be posted on the relevant pages. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I mean, there were multiple other discussions that concluded with staying at "Equestrian at", but as soon as another discussion is opened, it's all fair game again. Don't pick and choose which discussions you think we should and shouldn't stick with in perpetuity. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If a new consensus is reached through a new discussion, then the articles can be moved but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to unilaterally disregard and overrule the consensus of the most recent RM discussion. wjematherplease leave a message... 23:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I don't see any IDLI, and if we look at that latest discussion, I don't actually know how it closed in favour of moving to "Equestrian events" given the lack of !votes for that outcome that actually had reasons at all, let alone good ones (grammar prescriptionists are the ones who just DLI). So that's reason enough to call it a malformed close, if you are looking for reasons to disregard it for some reason(?) Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    If someone wishes to challenge the close, then they can do that, but this is not the appropriate venue. What nobody can do, is unilaterally disregard and overrule it, which is what has happened here, without even having the courtesy to contact the closer of the discussion, or any of its participants, to notify them of this one. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Yes - I thought this was a discussion to talk about the most recent close, I now see it is apparently a malformed RfC or move request? Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • Yes, "Equestrian" clearly should be used (treating it as the name of the Olympic sport/group of events - as the IOC and everyone who actually watches, instead of just comments on here, does - then it is both perfectly correct in English and fits our naming convention; there is no reason not to use it and every reason not to use anything else) and there have been many discussions that have come to that conclusion, but a handful of people who won't let go of nothing but their opinion that "it just sounds wrong" will keep moving individual articles, starting new move discussions, and being unpleasant in said discussions, until nobody has the mental energy to continue challenging them. Kingsif (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • This is not an appropriate place to hold a discussion to overturn the result of a properly advertised RM. I've reverted the page moves for the time being. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good article reassessment for Ryan Lochte edit

Ryan Lochte has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement! edit


Please note that Abdalá Bucaram, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI teamReply

Requested move at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mark Phillips#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move at Talk:Matthew Dunn#Requested move 27 March 2024 edit


There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Matthew Dunn#Requested move 27 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

3x3 or 3×3 Basketball edit

I've noticed that the 2020 articles use a lowercase x for 3x3 basketball article titles, however the 2024 article links are using a multiplication symbol for 3×3 articles – some of which have been created. We should be consistent, but what do we want to use?

Lowercase x
Multiplication sign

Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

One would think that we would mirror the main article, which is 3x3 basketball. I believe that is the lowercase x but I could be mistaken. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
That sounds reasonable, and I think is the easier way to go for fixing article names. It appears from this edit that the lowercase x is the consensus for naming convention. If no one objects I'll start renaming. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
No objection here. Noting the first sentence of the main article has a sourced claim that it's "pronounced three-ex-three" as opposed to three-by-three. So if that's correct, it supports using the letter x instead of the math symbol. DB1729talk 17:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn’t do that. It’s one of those issues where it is best to go through a requested move to flush out where the consensus lies. Schwede66 17:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Art competitions edit

The International Olympic Committee has apparently recognised them as part of the official program. The only medal table updated so far is the one for Berlin 1936 (I wonder why), where Germany's lead is now even more substantial. I suggest bringing all the other medal tables for editions 1912 through 1948 in line with the official IOC website. You can easily check the medal totals via these links: 1912, 1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, 1936, 1948. (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Individual athletes in the art competitions are also listed with the medals themselves.(e.g. Paul Höffer -
The justification for example in Art competitions at the 1936 Summer Olympics,
"At the time, medals were awarded to these artists, but art competitions are no longer regarded as official Olympic events by the International Olympic Committee. These events do not appear in the IOC medal database, and these totals are not included in the IOC's medal table for the 1936 Games".
is actually invalid and would either have to be revised or the medals should actually be included in all medal tables on Wiki.Nevertheless, a consensus on this would be desirable, as this would also affect the articles of the nations concerned (xxx_at_the olympics). Miria~01 (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Russian and Belarusian Flags edit

I was just reading the Individual Neutral Athletes at the 2024 Summer Olympics, when i saw that some user(s) have been adding a "from" column in every sport's section to differentiate the Russian athletes from Belarusian ones. This also includes flags of both the countries. But doesn't it violates the neutral nature of the this team. I do not think we should include the country from which these athletes hail from and especially not the flags. Also, are we going to list ANI as a precursor of Russia at the all time medal table. PrinceofPunjabTALK 06:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I will bow to those with wider knowledge on this project, but just to observe that going back the Unified Team of the 90s, Wikipedia has always shown the national identity of competing athletes from such "groups". doktorb wordsdeeds 07:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The indication of nationality there is intended to reflect the value of the information rather than questioning the nature of this special team. See also Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games and Independent Olympic Participants at the 1992 Summer Olympics, which was historically a similar case. For the question of the Top ten medal rankings (incl. precursor) in all-time: I would include this if Russian athletes win medals under the IOC code (AIN), as many statistics, with an asterisk for thins case, will probably be found that way. Possible Belarusian medalists should be ignored there. But it is not a strong case, whether medals from athletes under (AIN) should apply to Russia in this table, and I would understand a rejection. Miria~01 (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
But flag icons here are shown as the nation represented, and they represent no country at all. Zip. No way that flag icon should be there. I don't even think we should be showing from where they hail since those two countries are banned from participating, but certainly the flags should not be there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
As for example at 2024 Australian Open – Men's singles, those flag icons should certainly be omitted. --DB1729talk 13:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
yes, the flags are really not necessary. But I would keep the information about nationality. Miria~01 (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can see an argument for keeping the nationality (w/o flag icons) on this particular article in question. It's informative as to whether they happen to be from Russia or Belarus. But in Olympic results articles in general, there should be no mention of nationality at all. DB1729talk 13:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Olympic results articles will likely use {{FlagIOCathlete}} which calls the AIN flag. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
In keeping the strange "from" info for this article, does that mean we should add a column for other articles that have athletes who are "from" one country but compete for another? Look at Freestyle skiing at the 2022 Winter Olympics – Women's big air. The gold medal was won by Eileen Gu "from the United States." She represented China. I don't even see a footnote or mouseover for that, and I'm sure there are lots more than just her. It seems like a bad precedent to set for this one article. If they represent China, even though they are from the United States, that's all we need for the Olympics. If they represent no nation, that's good enough. Otherwise we'd need to create an article for all the athletes that have represented one nation while being "from" another nation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
It would be the only article where nationality ("from" should actually be changed to "nationality") is mentioned (same as here Independent Olympians at the Olympic Games (but w/o flags)). In all Olympic results articles (as Primefac stated) and medal tables only the AIN team name would be shown with the associated flag, same as here for e.g. Shooting at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Women's 10 metre air pistol, where only the (IOP) flag and team name for Šekarić is shown. Miria~01 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think making this article a special case is not the best idea. And using "nationality" vs "from" is a very bad idea. The word nationality in connection with the Olympics, in any parameter, has a very distinct meaning, and it confuses the reader to add labels the Olympics refuse to use. These are independent athletes representing no country. If a reader wants to know more about the person they can click on the name link, or reference source, and find out. And this isn't the only article where this conversation should be taking place. We also have articles such as:
and it could spill over into articles such as:
So it's not just one article here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • As Fyunck points out, we have a dozen other articles where athletes 'from' various nations - who all competed at an event as neutral individuals representing no nation - are listed without mention of any nationality. It's clearly not confused any reader yet, and is neither vital information nor particularly useful information at the list articles in question. It seems unnecessary to add. Maybe some users will argue it's not necessary to remove if it's already been added, but if just for consistency it probably is best to remove it - before even getting into the debate of the athletes not belonging to any nation for the purposes of the IOC. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    I'm pretty much neutral on including the country of origin for these athletes, and so I'm fine with removing it. Note that several of the articles listed by Fyunck do actually indicate a country. If for consistency, then removing the country should be considered for those articles as well? Also Fyunck, if wider participation is desired (and it would probably help) are you thinking posting notifications at the above articles' talk pages, or moving the discussion to a more visible place? DB1729talk 23:42, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    Ping @Fyunck(click): to above comment. It doesn't look like there's any passionate views, really, so I'd just remove from all. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
    To be honest, I don't edit a lot of Olympic articles... I'm just trying to help with my experience on thousands of tennis articles. I gave the best insight I could and was thinking of leaving it to others with more Olympic editing tenacity. A couple of the articles I listed actually have some flags also... I'm saying they would also be affected by decisions here unless this is a one-off article. If people want me to mention this discussion on those article talk pages I can certainly point them here. More eyes are always welcome, especially from those that edit Olympic pages profusely, since they would be the ones that would have to deal with changes against consensus in the future. note - I just added a neutral mention of this discussion at each of the talk pages I listed. There could be more pages I missed but this might bring a couple more folks with viewpoints that could help. This is the type discussion where WikiProjects shine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
I disagree with one statement. The countries of the athletes for the respective games are always mentioned if they came from several countries. Otherwise the matter is naturally unnecessary.
several country origin (with nationality) one country origin (no nationality)
Although I'm more of a supporter with the information of country origins, I wouldn't feel particularly bothered except for one article (overview of Independent Olympians), as one could argue that these always concern the explicit games (<NOC> at the <year> Summer/Winter Olympics).Miria~01 (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply