Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's

User:Marylanderz nominated this article for GA about a month ago. I reviewed the article, and placed it on hold. Marylanderz has not edited Wikipedia in three weeks, so I don't know if he or she will be around to make revisions. I'm fully willing to go beyond the seven day mark with the hold, but as it stands right this moment, the article needs further work to satisfy GA. Notifying all WikiProjects which have banners placed on the article's talk page. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 23:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted out most of the minor issues with the above article, i'll do the more time consuming ones in the next few days as and when I have the time. There is a similar situation with Ski jumping at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Normal hill individual also nominated by [User:Marylanderz]]. Again i've sorted some of the issues but the reviewer is requesting some more detailed coverage on the mechanics of the competition and on practice runs etc, information which I'm unable to find, so if anyone is able to add anything it might prevent the article being failed - Basement12 (T.C) 15:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Olimpick

Olimpick Games redirects to Cotswold Games

I was wondering if it is more common a mispelling for Olympics, or for Cotswold...

76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Olympicks, Olimpick Games and Cotswold Games all redirect to Cotswold Olimpick Games. At the top of the article it properly says "“Olympicks” redirects here. For the 1894 revival, see Olympic Games." "Olimpicks", and "Olimpick" do not have redirects, so they go to the search page.

My opinion: redirect "Olympicks" and "Olympick" (incorrectly spelled for either games) to Olympic (a disambiguation page that already exists), and add redirects from "Olimpick" and "Olimpicks" (correctly spelled for the Cotswold Games) to Cotswold Olimpick Games. This would route users based on spelling. I guess the message at the top of the Cotswold Games article would also need to be changed to "“Olimpicks” redirects here. For the 1894 revival, see Olympic Games. For other uses, see Olympic." Donlammers (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Olympic Bids task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic Bids created to centralize the work around Bids for Olympic Games. Best regards; Felipe Menegaz 20:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Amazing work, Felipe! Congratulations on setting up this task force. I hope it attracts more editors. Whenever I can I'll give a hand. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you! :) Felipe Menegaz 20:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GamesSport template

Hi everyone. More of a multi-sport thing than an Olympics thing specifically: I've been doing work on listing the sports held at various multi-sport Games and thought that it was a good example of where a template could simplify things. Typically, I (and others) have been adding lists of the sports with links to the results pages and pictograms (example here). The constant copying, pasting, and editing was tiring me out!

I have now created the {{GamesSport}} template, which means that all you have to do is write in the sport and it's all done! Also, {{GamesSport2}} is available to link directly to the results pages (i.e. not the sport) as I know that this system is widely in use. They should work on both the main Games articles and the Games edition articles. I think a link to the sport itself with a "details" link is more helpful for readers, but both ways are as valid as each other I suppose. Winter sports are largely absent, as are those which have no svg pictogram to link to. There are sure to be a couple of improvements which could be made but I think this could definitely make things easier for adding the sports to Asian/Commonwealth/South American Games pages. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 13:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles moving from GA to FA

I'm wondering about articles that promote from GA to FA, do we continue to list them on both the GA and FA list or should they only be listed on the FA list? I know that when they are promoted they are removed from WP:GA. The 1956 Winter Olympics is currently on both lists, I'm also attempting to push the Winter Olympics (which is current a GA) up to FA. It's not a huge issue in the overall scheme of things but I thought I'd ask. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

No, FA are no longer GA so they should be unlisted from the GA list. I'll remove the 1956 Winter Olympics instance from the GA list. Thanks for pointing that out. Cheers. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Olympic Oath

FYI, {{Olympic Oath}} has been nominated for deletion. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics

Having taken the above article to good article reassessment a user is now insistent that the article (and therefore perhaps all/many in Category:Nations at the Winter Paralympics, Category:Nations at the Summer Paralympics, Category:Nations at the Winter Olympics and Category:Nations at the Summer Olympics) is not notable and has repeatedly placed a banner suggetsing merging with 1992 Winter Paralympics or possibly deleting the article. Some input from other members of the project upon the notability of this type of arfticle and what you believe should constitute a GA would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Great Britain at the 1992 Winter Paralympics/1 - Basement12 (T.C) 11:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Egypt or United Arab Republic

A user moved this article to the title "United Arab Republic at the 1960 Summer Olympics", which one is better ? is it not better to use UAR instead of EGY for this year (also 1964 and 1968) ? --Mohsen1248 (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be an idea place to formalise our policy of having articles for sports, nations and events at a Games. I think we would require a separate section beyond what is already in the guidelines as written (this is something we'd have to discuss at the at the talk page there) and we'd probably need to illustrate each category with an example, preferably a GA of FA, (my thinking here being the need to show the difference between a sport e.g. Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics and an event e.g. Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's). I'd also suggest we link to our MOS. I'll draw up a draft of what our guidelines would be and post it here before bringing up anything at WP:NSPORT - Basement12 (T.C) 08:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst the main discussion going on is on the notability of athletes, something that probably won't affect this project as all Olympians are deemed notable and this seems unlikely to change, there is also some detail on sports teams, seasons and matches contained within WP:NSPORT. My suggestion is that we try to have something like the following included;

• Athletes from any sport are considered notable if they have competed at either the Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games. e.g. Ian Thorpe
• Nations participating at an individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2002 Winter Paralympics
• Sports at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Archery at the 2004 Summer Olympics or Wheelchair curling at the 2010 Winter Paralympics
• Events at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's

For details on suggested content for the above article types see Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style.

Thoughts? Basement12 (T.C) 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with where Basement12 is going here. We've run into a situation where an editor questioned the notability of a nation at a Paralympic Games article. His question was in good faith and centered around finding independent sources. His contention was that relying on sources such as the International Olympic Committee/International Paralympic Committee or it's subsidiary National Committees is not independent sourcing under the notability guidelines. Without having done a lot of research I would hazard to guess that a vast majority of the articles listed in the categories above are sourced primarily via the IOC/IPC or subsidiary websites. Hence the need to hammer out and establish notability in a neutral forum, otherwise we are faced with the Herculean task of finding indenpendent sources for each article or face deletion of thousands of very notable articles on a technicality in the guidelines.
• Regarding Basement12's recommendations I would make a couple of tweaks. I would change "Teams" to "Nations" since the articles are titled by nation. Are you going to give an article example for Athletes? Recommend Ian Thorpe. For articles to use I would agree with either GA or FA.
• I notice considerable energy given to Olympic/Paralympic bid articles as well. Do you want to include this as another notable category? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 16:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes Nations is what I meant there. I didn't think an example athlete article was entirely needed as the format for biographies is common enough but as we have a good example we can use it. Bid articles could also be included; I don't have much experience with them so I don't know what the policy on articles is, I'd assume that recent/future ones would have no problem passing notability using their press coverage anyway. Basement12 (T.C) 16:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have anything else to add or can this now be taken forward to WP:NSPORT? Basement12 (T.C) 13:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've raised our ideas at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Olympians - Basement12 (T.C) 15:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympics

On a related note (but in a subsection to keep this topic together), what notability do we expect for Youth Games athletes? My opnion is that this is not the highest level of amateur competition, and that medalists only (unless GNG is otherwise satisfied for specific people) would have biographic articles.
And what about summary style for the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics article? For the main Games, we have per-sport, per-nation, and per-event articles, but should the Youth Games have the same structure? I see that some sport and nation articles are already being created. Will we have the same level of detail as the main Games? I wouldn't have thought so. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that none of the athletes, medalists or otherwise, are notable simply for taking part in what is a junior event. If an athlete qualify under WP:GNG, as many medalists will do, or the guidelines for their specific sport (which in all cases I know of they wouldn't) then that's another matter. Similarly for nations or events; fine if GNG is met but they shouldn't automatically have articles created. Basement12 (T.C) 16:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if that is the case, then do per-nation or per-event articles make sense? Those would be not much more than tables of results with almost all redlinked names. I propose that we only have a per-sport breakdown of the Youth Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that articles that are just tables of red linked names aren't notable and shouldn't exist for the Youth Games, but there may be the possibility to expand an article beyond that, if sources of information are out there. If an article was expanded to look more like Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Paralympics, which contains lots of red links but has well sourced prose as well then it should be allowed (under GNG it would have to be). I think a case by case basis, where we insist on notability of the the event, or nations performance being independently established properly is the only solution - Basement12 (T.C) 17:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, but the temptation will be strong for some people to complete all the redlinks at 2010 Summer Youth Olympics#Participating nations... — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings

2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings is up for renaming again at WP:RM, see the talk page Talk:2008 Beijing Drum Tower stabbings

70.29.208.247 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Help

Can someone help me on Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic Bids? Thanks; Felipe Menegaz 14:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Felipe Menegaz 23:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Status of 1900 Games

Thesis

"The Games at the Paris Exposition was not recognised as Olympic Games by the IOC during the event, nor in 1901 at the 4th IOC Session in Paris"

Continuation of discussions at Template talk:Summer Olympic stadia and Talk:1900 Summer Olympics (possibly others as well). It may be helpful if User:Nipsonanomhmata could summarise the edits they wish to make for the benefit of anyone new to the debate. - Basement12 (T.C) 14:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit that is required is really simple. Whenever the Games at the Paris Exposition are mentioned and notably when the term "1900 Paris Olympic Games" is used it should be made clear with references that the International Olympic Committee did not recognise them as Olympic Games at the time, nor did they come under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is one reference to be getting on with.Journal of Olympic History, Volume 10, December 2001/January 2002, The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906, by Karl Lennartz.

I'll provide more references as required. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see that source does nothing to back up your claims. If you are refering to the use of the phrase "The Second International Olympics in Athens" when it talks about the 1906 Intercalated Games I believe this refers to them being the second event of this type to be held in Athens. On page ten the article even refers to the 1906 Games in the following way "In contrast to the events in Paris in 1900 and in St Louis in 1904, these fourth Olympic Games...", so at best your source is self-contradictory. Basement12 (T.C) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you reread the first two or three sentences again. It is quite clear that at the time the IOC recognised the 1906 Athens Olympic Games as the 2nd International Olympic Games of the only IOC series of Olympic Games. However, I will provide more references if you need them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The only document to use the phrase "second games" for 1906 also uses the phrase "third games" for the intended 1910 games, but at the same time clearly speaks of games to be held also in 1904 and 1908. It couldn't therefore possibly intend these numbers to be understood in terms of an absolute count of all Olympic Games. And of course, much more important, Nipson's argument based on that document is not only obviously wrong, it is also blatantly OR, as none of the authors he quotes actually proposed this argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to my response above. I also note your popular use of the word "blatantly" which rarely drops out of your vocabulary. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The document Journal of Olympic History, Volume 10, December 2001/January 2002, The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906, by Karl Lennartz. makes it clear, in the first paragraph, that it is referring to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Olympic Games as 1896, 1906, and 1910. But this is not the issue we are discussing here. The issue is very plain and simple. The Games at the Paris Exposition in 1900 did not come under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. They were not called Olympic Games at the time by anybody including the International Olympic Committee. Nor were they called Olympic Games in the report of the International Olympic Committee at the 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Any evidence, proof or even a source that comes close to mentioning this concept? Nothing you've provided does. And by the way your above statement that the Karl Lennartz document "makes it clear, in the first paragraph, that it is referring to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Olympic Games as 1896, 1906, and 1910" is a complete fabrication as well. 1910 isn't even mention until page 5. Basement12 (T.C) 17:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The poster for the 1900 Games (File:Paris 1900 Olympics Games Poster.jpg) uses the phrase Olympic Games (Jeux Olympiques) so they must have been refered to as such at the time - Basement12 (T.C) 14:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not an original poster of the Paris Exposition. They were not called "Jeux Olympiques" in 1900. Here is a scan of an original poster [Original Poster]. There is a better image at mapsofworld.com/olympic-trivia/images/olympic-posters/paris1900.jpg but it triggers a WP filter and I can't seem to get the full URL up here, so you'll have to add the http:/www. by yourself. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 14:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

For once, I must tend to agree with Nipson. The poster at File:Paris 1900 Olympics Games Poster.jpg looks like it might be a later montage, and it contradicts the statement here [1], saying that "the term Olympics does not appear on any official documents, nor on the many posters put up on the walls of Paris […]". Wow, Nips, you really know your history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I would take that as a compliment if I wasn't being paraphrased from my statement in my appeal. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, this looks like a darned reliable source (copyright IOC Olympic Museum—Allsport/Getty Images), so we have two reliable sources contradicting each other. Or, we take the encyclopedia article only at its most literal meaning, saying that posters "on the walls of Paris" didn't use the term, but maybe posters used elsewhere did? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Speculation. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, this site has the Paris Exposition poster and says "No official poster for the modern Olympic Games would be produced until the Games in Stockholm in 1912. The picture you see is a official poster from the World Exhibition in 1900, Paris." which raises the question of where the Jeux Olympiques poster came from. I think it could well be from 1900 just not an official poster in the same way that existed for later Games. The site Nipson gives also states "competitions were recognised as Olympic and made up the programme of the second modern Olympic Games". Still waiting for any source saying that 1900 wasn't an IOC Games. Basement12 (T.C) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

More speculation on the poster. Some competitions were later recognised as Olympic. But in 1900 the IOC did not recognise them as Olympic Games. Nor were they recognised as Olympic Games in 1901 and that is fully documented by the IOC in the official report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nipsonanomhmata's poster is also the one detailed on the IOC website - Basement12 (T.C) 15:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the official poster for the Paris Exposition. If you look at the original tickets for the event you get the same story. No mention of Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This source whilst not necessarily entirely reliable seems to give the story of 1900 in the form that I have understood it. The IOC and de Coubertin wanted to hold the Games in Paris and drew up plans, schedules etc. to do so, the Exposition organisers then stepped in, took over the planning (scrapping the IOC plans in the process and stretching events over 5 months) and chose not to use the name "Olympic Games" in any of their published material (note it was not the IOC that chose not to use that term), instead preferring "Concours Internationaux d'exercises physiques et de sport" (as seen on the posters). All IOC material that I have seen (the Official Report was produced by the Expo organisers I believe) refers to Paris 1900 as an Olympic Games. Basement12 (T.C) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The organisers of the Paris Exposition didn't step in. They were funding the Exposition. The IOC had nothing to do with the Paris Exposition. The IOC had never funded an Olympic Games. Nobody was going to give the IOC the time of day. Even the medals awarded during the Expo don't mention the Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Source challenged

Nipsonanomhmata has repeatedly used a reference to "Journal of Olympic History, Special Issue - December 2008, The Official Publichation of the International Society of Olympic Historians, p. 2" as an alleged source for the argument that the use of the phrase "second Olympic Games", in 1901, in reference to the planned intercalated 1906 games in Athens, is evidence for the non-olympic status of the 1900 Paris games [2]. I have repeatedly asked him to provide literal quotations from this 2008 article sufficient to demonstrate that the authors of the article are in fact proposing that argument (rather than just quoting the 1901 document for some other purpose). So far, he has failed to do so. I will remove all references to that source unless this demonstration is provided, given that the other source he used for the same contention ("Journal of Olympic History, Volume 10, December 2001/January 2002, The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906, by Karl Lennartz") also turned out not to support it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I have provided references every single time that you have asked for them Fut Perf. The reference is not an "alleged" reference. I actually own a copy of it. But if you doubt me I suggest that you email the ISOH and ask them if they published it. I know that they published it. But to be honest you are wearing me down. Go to the source and get the evidence first-hand from the horse's mouth. Nothing that I can say or do will convince you of the authenticity of the source. The historical fact remains that the International Olympic Committee did not recognise the Games at the Paris Exposition in 1900 as an Olympic Games at that time. That is historical fact. The fact remains that the Games at the Paris Exposition in 1900 did not come under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. That is historical fact. Nobody can change those historical realities even if the IOC claims otherwise today their own historical documentation including the Official Report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris (which is a reference in itself) makes it clear that the event at Paris was not an Olympic Games. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the ISOH published their Journal after 2004 or 2005, so I don't know what he is referring to with the "December 2008" issue. And as for the 1906 Games, after reading the JOH article), I think the phrase "Second International Olympic Games in Athens 1906" is ambiguous. Is it the second Games overall, or second to be held in Athens? But more importantly, after reading the whole article I think it is original research to extrapolate about the status of the 1900 Games. There are no direct statements for the non-Olympic status of 1900. In fact, there is the opposite—the article states "In contrast to the events in Paris in 1900 and in St. Louis in 1904, these IVth Olympic Games were a success..." If these were the fourth, then certainly Paris 1900 was the second. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"I don't think..."? Is not sufficient argument. Either you know or you don't know. Why don't you contact the ISOH direct and ask them. Then you will know for sure. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Koninklijke Bibliotheek, the legal deposit library of the Netherlands, where the IJOH is/was published, has issues only until 2007 [3]. I can find no holdings after 2004/2005 in any library in, for instance, Germany. On the society's own blog, newer issues are announced regularly (e.g. [4]), but I can find no reference to a "Special Issue" of December 2008. Given these observations, we will need to insist on very clear evidence that this journal issue actually exists, that it counts as a regular publication (rather than just a private, membership-only newsletter), and that it is a reputable (peer-reviewed?) academic outlet. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you contact the ISOH and ask them. They have a website. They have email addresses. Ask them. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Further to this, the mere existence of the newer issues can be confirmed ([5], catalog holdings of the home institution of one of the editors). Apparently even this library, the largest specialised sports library world-wide, only began collecting this journal when its professor took over its editorship. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Like I said. Email the ISOH and ask them. I have provided more than enough iron-clad evidence. I've done all the work. The rest of you are speculating. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You've actually provided no evidence. The only source that might back up your claims may or may not exist (sorry not willing to assume good faith here) and as far has anyone else has been able to work out it doesn't. Regardless of whether it exists I hardly think it will be enough to make everyone ignore the huge number of sources that do say that 1900 was considered an IOC Olympic Games. Basement12 (T.C) 13:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have more references if you need them. But here is a scan of the cover of the December 2008 Special Issue which is dedicated to the Paris Exposition thumb|right|ISOH Journal of Olympic History, December 2008, Special Issue, by Karl Lennartz, Tony Bijkerk and Volker Kluge, ISBN 1085-5165 Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Image removed and replaced with link, it was marked as non free and therefore is not allowed on a talk page - Basement12 (T.C) 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since N. refuses to provide the requested quotations, I will assume that this 2008 article supports his claims just as much or as little as the 2002 Lennartz article. I will remove all references to this paper where it is used to support the – apparently purely WP:OR – claim that because somebody referred to 1906 as the "second Olympic Games Athens" we can can conclude that the 1900 games were not olympic. The first statement itself (that "second Olympic Games Athens" was used) is verifiable and can stay (with the Lennartz paper as reference); the false OR inference from it cannot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have already provided the requested quotations on the Olympic Stadia page and also in the article of the Paris Exposition (unfortunately, you have already deleted my contribution to that which was comprehensively referenced). I can re-enter the references and quotations again if you like. I have also provided alternative references for the "Second International Olympic Games in Athens" which includes the heading used for one of the decisions at the 4th IOC Session in Paris. That document is the Official Report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris. That document has been written and published by the International Olympic Committee and it includes the heading "Second International Olympic Games in Athens". That's not original research. That document is an official IOC document that was published 109 years ago. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the official report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901 as well as the official report of the Games at the Paris Exposition. Here are some additional reference again just in case you need them. None refer to the Games at the Paris Exposition as Olympic Games because neither were considered to be Olympic Games. The references include:

Volume II of the Official Report published by Merillon (Exposition Universelle Internationale de 1900 a Paris [ed.], Concours Internationaux d'Exercices Physiques et de Sports, Paris 1900 (published in 1900). Other references which I can show you are images of the medals themselves, issued in 1900, that do not mention the Olympic Games (only the Exposition), the tickets themselves, issued in 1900. None of these items (official report, medal, ticket) mention the Olympic Games (only the Exposition). The tickets were generic Paris Exposition tickets and there were no Olympic Games specific tickets. Similarly, the medals were the same medals issued for exhibit prizes. Some of the medals had wording changed but none of the medals used the words Jeux Olympiques or anything to give any clue that the medals were Olympic medals.Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to see an example of the ticket to the Paris Exposition which is regularly sold on eBay. Here is an example (cut and paste the text to your browser address window): cgi.ebay.com/RARE-ORIGINAL-SECOND-OLYMPIC-GAMES-TICKET-PARIS-1900-/ 290435322356?cmd=ViewItem&pt=AU_Summer_Winter_Games_Memorabilia& hash=item439f4b51f4 Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You can also get tickets to the first Winter Olympic Games. I don't mean the one in 1924 that was recognised by the IOC in 1925 (after the event). I mean the one that the IOC does not officially recognise. The first Winter Olympic Games were held at an ice-skating rink in London in 1908. The tickets for that event are super rare. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None of this shows that the IOC did not refer to them as Olympics, merely that the Exposition organisers didn't wish to do so. The Official report and all medals etc were and are produced by the organising committee of a Games and not the IOC themselves - in this case that was the Exposition oranisers. I've also requested deletion of the image you uploaded as it is non-free and should only be used in an article on the journal it depicts. Basement12 (T.C) 19:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The image upload was only intended as temporary so that you and Fut Perf could see it. But at least you have acknowledged that you have seen it. It also included the ISBN number (ISBN 1085-5165). The IOC report written for the 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901 was written by the IOC itself and they do not refer to the Paris Exposition Games as an Olympic Games. In fact, they refer to the future 1906 Athens Olympic Games as the Second International Olympic Games. The 1906 Athens Olympics was not officially called "intercalated games" by the IOC till 1948. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

When I refer to the "Official Report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901" I am referring to the whole report and not to a specific page. Nowhere in that report has the Games at the Paris Exposition been referred to as "Olympic Games". However, the 1906 Athens Olympic Games which was called that at that time and was not called "intercalated" till 1948 was referred to as Olympic Games in that report and indeed has a whole section dedicated to it. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before the IOC was not involved at the Paris Exposition. However, Baron Pierre de Coubertin was involved with the organisation of the athletics events in his capacity as Secretary General of the U.S.F.S.A. and he was only involved to act as president of the athletics events on July 19 (one day) and the marathon. He was not permitted to involve the International Olympic Committee in any way [the reference is page 4 of the Dec 2008 Special Issue of the Journal of Olympic History, I've already quoted the reference above and its ISBN number] Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Nipson is still revert-warring at 1900 Summer Olympics, reinserting his OR speculation about the 1901 documents allegedly serving as evidence for non-olympic status of 1900 [6], and at Vélodrome de Vincennes [7], where he is removing any reference to the word "Olympics" (and incidentally also to the word "stadium"). This one of the worst cases of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT that I've seen in a long while on this project. I really don't know what other form of dispute resolution with this person could be expected to be anything else but a waste of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we go all over again. I am not revert-warring. Fut Perf has challenged my source by saying that I have mis-cited and that I am expressing a POV. I have not mis-cited and I am not expressing a POV. Nor is there any Original Research. One source is a primary source that was published in 1901. Two other sources are secondary sources from the International Society of Olympic Historians. It is an accurate source. My use of the source is that the words "Olympic Games" ("Jeux Olympiques") are not used to describe the Games at the 1900 Paris Exposition. That is 100 per cent accurate and true. Despite my endless patience in this discussion. I do not understand why Fut Perf keeps reverting my 100 per cent bonafide sources or the varbatim quotes that I place in the discussions. My opinion is that Fut Perf keeps jumping the gun, is being overly zealous, and has never assumed good faith. I thought that you had agreed above that at least one of the references was acceptable. If any of the three sources are acceptable in your eyes then I really do not understand what we are debating. Moreover, I have cited other sources including the official report of the 1900 Paris Exposition (this I did with the full French name in the category Olympic Stadia. This reference alone makes it fully clear that the 1900 Paris Games did not fall under the auspices of the IOC. What do you want Fut Perf? Ask me. I will deliver whatever you ask. Why are you being so aggressive? And why do I have to re-enter bonafide referenced information multiple times. Why are you making me do everything multiple times? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am able to tell Nipsonanomhmata's case rests entirely on a misinterpretation of the phrase 'The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906' and the fact that the 1900 Exposition organisers did not use the rterm Olympic Games. For this to be interpreted as the IOC not claiming the 1900 Games there would also need to be proof, from an IOC source, that they didn't claim the1900 and 1904 Games. Until such proof is provided, and I don't believe it will be, then Nipsonanomhmata's edit's should continue to be reverted as OR. Basement12 (T.C) 12:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not the case. My response is in the new section below titled "References in more detail". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I wouldn't mind giving appropriate coverage in the 1900 Olympics article to the thesis that the event ought not to be seen as authentically Olympics, a claim that is apparently actually made by Lennartz et al in that 2008 volume. What I don't accept is:

1. the idea that the wording regarding the "2nd Olympics" could be used as an argument for this claim (absent clear proof that such an argument is actually made by those authors)
2. the attempt at having this new perspective disrupt conventional counting and naming practices, e.g. by removing all references to "Olympic" from tangentially related other articles (such as the one about the stadium), or removing 1900 from related templates and lists etc.
3. the tendency of pushing inordinate amounts of argumentative coverage of this claim into the lead of articles (Wikipedia:Lead fixation). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My response is in the section below titled "References in more details". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

References in more detail

In fact, there are a lot of good reasons why it is important to note that the Games at the Paris Exposition in 1900 were not recognised as Olympic Games by the International Olympic Committee or Baron Pierre de Coubertin. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article at -> ISOH Journal <- about Athens 1906 is full of historical facts that make it absolutely clear that the IOC did not consider the Paris Exposition Games in 1900 to be Olympic Games. Whatever the IOC says today is not the same as what it said and documented in 1900 and 1901. That is a fact. And no historian can reasonably just cover up the fact that what the IOC says today contradicts what it said in 1900 and 1901.

REFERENCE A “Exposition Universelle Internationale de 1900 a Paris, Concours Internationale d’Exercices Physiques et de Sports, Rapports, publies sous la direction de M.D. Merillon, Tome II, Paris, Impremerie Nationale.”

A1. This is where all the sporting events of the Games at the Paris Exposition are described. There is not one single mention of “Olympic Games” throughout this volume. No mention on the cover and no mention in the text. No IOC rules or regulations are included. Clearly this was not intended to be an Olympic Games. It was not organised by the IOC. It did not come under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee.

A2. Baron Pierre de Coubertin was involved as the Secretary General of the U.S.F.S.A. and was not involved in any representative capacity of the International Olympic Committee. [A secondary reference for this is the Special Issue – Dec 2008 of the Journal of the Olympic History, published by the International Society of Olympic Historians]. No member of the International Olympic Committee represented the IOC at the Games of the Paris Exposition in 1900. The IOC’s involvement was prevented by M.D. Merillon (the man in charge of the Paris Exposition).

REFERENCE B “Exposition Universelle Internationaux de 1900 a Paris, Reglement Generale des Concours Internationale d’Exercices Physiques et de Sports, Paris 1900, publies sous la direction de M.D. Merillon, Impremerie Nationale.”

B1. No mention of the International Olympic Committee in the invitations sent to all the countries and all the athletes to attend the Olympic Games. No IOC letter-head, no IOC auspices, no IOC representative, no IOC President.

REFERENCE B. Here are some examples from [8]:

C1. From the first paragraph of the first page of the article which is p. 10 of this particular ISOH Journal:

The title of the article is “The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906”. It is very clear what this article is about. It does not say the “The Intermediate Games of Athens 1906”. It does not say “The 1st Intercalated Olympic Games in Athens 1906”. It does not say “The Second Athenian Olympic Games”. It does not say “The 2nd Athenaic” or “Panathenaic” or “Hellenic” “Olympic Games. It says “The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906”. The IOC also considers that the 1st International Olympic Games in Athens 1896 to be the 1st International Olympic Games (in the IOC’s “official” version of history). The title by itself says that no International Olympic Games was held in Paris in 1900 (i.e. none that were under the auspices of the IOC).

C2. That same first paragraph also says that it was not till 1948 that the IOC decided to change its own version of history and call the 1906 Athens Olympic Games the “Intermediate” Games. That’s not a POV. It’s a fact.

C3. On p. 17 of the same article Baron Pierre de Coubertin published the program of the 1906 Athens Olympic Games published in the Revue Olympique. It also says:

"COUBERTIN could not simply leave out the IOC decision which the IOC requested all countries and associations which it cooperated to take part in the Games in Athens. He had, in accordance with the IOC’s mandate, written a letter to the countries and associations, pointing out the Games in Athens.”

The IOC invited countries to the 1906 Athens Olympic Games as part of the official IOC organisation and under the auspices of the IOC. This was not the case with Paris in 1900. See below for more details about Paris in 1900.

C4. On p. 20 (bottom left, last sentence) of the same article

“With all criticism of COUBERTIN – the 1906 Games had been named “real” Olympic Games by the IOC.”

C5. Further down,

“He briefly describes the magnificent opening ceremony and then adds that Count Eugenio BRUNETTA d’USSEAUX had represented him” [as official representative of the IOC].

C6. Last sentence of p. 20 and first of p.21:

“After having used a not quite understandable excuse in 1904 for not going to St Louis.” [there were no representative of the IOC at St. Louis and although COUBERTIN was head of the athletics (only) organisation (not cycling not football, not motorboating, not motor racing, not ballooning, not swimming etc) He was not there as a representative of the IOC since Paris 1900 was not under the auspices of the IOC.]

C7. On p. 22 first paragraph.

“MERKATI remarks that especially BALCK and GERHARDT were completely dissatisfied with the work done by the IOC. That they [, the IOC,] had taken part in Olympic Games is not in the least questioned by both.”

C8. On p. 25 Now, despite the IOC referring to the Athens 1906 Olympic Games as “International Olympic Games”. Coubertin, after his failure to get the IOC on top of the organisations in Paris and St Louis and Coubertin’s reluctance to have Athens 1906 under the auspices of the IOC. He refers to London 1908 as the “4th Olympics”. Interesting, that he jumps from “2nd International Olympic Games” to “4th Olympics”. From here on he had decided in his own mind that 1906 Athens was going to be overlooked and side-stepped as “Intermediate Games” at some point in the future. But this was done in retrospect. Despite the fact that previous plans for the Games in Paris in 1900 and St Louis in 1904, to come under the auspices of the IOC, had failed.

C9. On p. 26 top right first para. It is made absolutely clear that all the prominent scholars of Olympic history listed in the paragraph, consider the 1906 Athens Olympic Games to be an official “Olympic Games” without question and not “Intermediate Games” (despite the IOC’s current position which is not the same as it was between 1900 and 1906).

“It is also clear to many authors, who indulge in the study of the history of the participation of one nation in the Games that these, or any other teams, took part in the Olympic Games in Athens in 1906.”

C10. On p. 26 Abstract. This section discusses the split between IOC members of where future Olympic Games were to be held. Notably, the Americans wanted the Olympics to stay in Greece.

C11. On p. 27 Motion. The International Society of Olympic Historians recommended to the IOC to “include the Second International Olympic Games 1906 in Athens” in the IOC’s official list of Olympic Games. The current list does not. The list in 1906 did.

REFERENCE D. “Journal of Olympic History, Special Issue, December 2008, published by the International Society of Olympic Historians, ISBN 10855165.”

D1. This special issue dedicated solely to the Games at the Paris Exposition in 1900. Highlights some of the issues above and is a very good secondary reference. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lets start with points under C shall we... This is still your interpretation of the phrase "The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906", to me this still sounds the same as 2nd Athenian Olympic Games.

A and B: Not produced in any way by the IOC, as perviously pointed out this is the organisers of the Exposition refusing to use the term Olympic Games just as they insisted on organising the events that made up the 1900 Summer Olympics.

You've made the same argument with the same sources again. Nothing here backs up your claims but merely reiterates that the Exposition organisers didn't like the Olympics muscling in on their event and therefore didn't want to use the Olympic name or allow the IOC control (we know that) and that the 1906 Intercalated Games were endorsed by the IOC and for a long time considered to be true Olympics (we know that). It seems you are making two seperate arguments, one without real evidence and one on a subject that is well documented and well known. Basement12 (T.C) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1: No, it is not my interpretation. It was the IOC's interpretation. As documented in the official IOC report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901 with a secondary reference being the Journal of Olympic History, Special Issue, December 2008. How does it sound like "2nd Athenian Games"? The International Olympic Committee itself named them very clearly “The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906”. There is no ambiguity in what the IOC considered the 1906 Athens Olympic Games to be at that time. There was a lot of political infighting at the IOC at that time and the majority did not agree with Baron Pierre de Coubertin's point-of-view regarding Athens. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 2: Yes, the organizers of the 1900 Paris Exposition organised the events. They were in charge. The IOC was not. Baron Pierre de Coubertin worked for the organizers of the Exposition. Not the other way around and not in his capacity as a representative of the IOC. However, the invitations, documented by the second of the two references, that were sent out were sent out by the IOC and those invitations did not refer to "Olympic Games". Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 3: ok. I am glad that you know what you know. However, the "Intercalated Games" were not called that. They were officially re-named "Intermediate Games" in 1949 by the Brundage Commission (which made a serious historical error). Which argument do you need more evidence for? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, what exactly is the point you are trying to make with this argumentative wall of text? That the perception of the 1900 Games (and the 1906 Games) was different a century ago than it is now? Fine, we all know that. But if you want to clog the lede of the 1900 article with an excessive discussion of this point, then it violates Wikipedia policy, which is why it is being reverted. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't intentionally trying to clog the lead of the 1900 article nor trying to be argumentative. I am just trying to be thorough in answering your questions. But it is important that it is at least mentioned in a paragraph that in 1900 the International Olympic Committee did not consider that the Games there were Olympic. It is also important to note that the Games were not under the auspices of the International Olympic Committee. The impression that I get when I read the article is that the 1900 Paris "Olympic Games" was an Olympic Games that was held under the auspices of the IOC. Which it was not. I think that is misleading and historically dishonest. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit conflict (again)... Point 1 - It's the addition of the "in Athens" that makes it sound like 2nd Athenian Games. The in Athens is saying that it is the second Olympics to be held in Athens. Not the second overall. This makes Paris 1900 the second overall. Point 2 - Explain this to me.... If the invertations were sent by the IOC how were the Games not under the auspices of the IOC? The initial idea to host the Games in Paris came from the Baron. Athletes may not have been aware they were in the Olympics but as far as the IOC was and is concerned they were. Point 3 - As Andrwsc asked, what is your point? Yes at the time and afterwards they were considered real Olympics, some still think of them as such others know them as the Intercalated Games. This is an entirely separate issue to 1900. Basement12 (T.C) 00:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1. I have not yet come across a single prominent Olympic historian who has referred to the Athens 1896 Olympic Games as the "2nd Athenian Games" and neither has the IOC ever referred to them in that way. Nor is it in historical fact the 2nd Olympic Games to be held in Athens since Olympic Games were held in Athens in 1859, 1870, 1875, 1896 amd 1906 (by that time) (and every single one of them was called Olympic Games with tickets and medals that say so - unlike the Paris Exposition). That's besides the point. Since we are concerned with the IOC's POV the point is that the IOC called them “The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906” and they did not call the 1900 Paris Exposition Games "Olympic Games" (at that time) and they did not call them or refer to them as "The 2nd International Olympic Games" (at that time i.e. in 1900 and in 1901). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 2. Baron Pierre de Coubertin was the Secretary General of the W.S.F.S.A. and was involved in the Exposition as the president of the athletic events (that excluded all of the events at the velodrome and many other events). He was not permitted to represent the IOC in his involvement that was made clear by the organisers of the Exposition. However, he used the contacts that he had made before, during and after the Athens 1896 Olympic Games to send out invitations on behalf of the Paris Exposition. The invitations themselves do not refer to the Paris Exposition Games as "Olympic Games". At this particular time Baron Pierre de Coubertin would have been badly frustrated because he was not getting his way. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 3. The IOC did not call the 1900 Paris Exposition Games "Olympic Games" in 1900 or in 1901 and that is the point (the IOC was calling the event in Athens 1906 -> Olympic Games and at exactly the same time they were not calling the event that occurred in Paris 1900 -> Olympic Games. The IOC made it perfectly clear that Athens 1906 was Olympic and that Paris 1900 was not. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Again you aren't adding anything to this discussion just rehashing your same old points. I'm not saying anyone called them the 2nd Athenian Games just that they were called the second IOC Games in Athens - this still is not the same as saying second games overall. Even the source you have provided refers to 1906 as the 4th Olympic Games (Journal of Olympic History, Volume 10, December 2001/January 2002, The 2nd International Olympic Games in Athens 1906, by Karl Lennartz page 10) On your second point - EXACTLY Coubertin would have been badly frustrated because he was not getting his way - his way and the IOC's way was the Games being run by the IOC; the IOC thought of the Games as Olympics and therefore wanted more control. If they weren't Olympics why did they bother to get involved at all? What you need to provide is an IOC source, an actual IOC produced source not one from the Exposition organisers (I may possibly accept significantly credible, unambigous secondary sources), that state that the IOC did not consider the 1900 Games to be an Olympics. Not merely a source that omits the word Olympics, not one that might be interpreted as counting 1906 as the 2nd Olympics, but one that actively states that 1900 (&1904 if you like) were not Olympics. Basement12 (T.C) 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1. Regarding the source mentioning 4th Olympic Games. When the 4th Games is mentioned by the source it is noted in the context of later discussions. Regardless of what the discussion was about you cannot change history in retrospect. In 1900 and in 1901 the IOC regarded the 1906 Athens Olympic Games as Olympic Games. That is an unchangeable historical fact. Also they were never called the "2nd IOC Games in Athens" either. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 2. Coubertin was not entitled to more control at the Paris Exposition. The IOC did not fund the Paris Exposition. He was lucky to get what he got and was lucky to be involved in any capacity. Ofcourse, everybody would like more control and responsibility but the IOC was not calling the shots. The organisers of the Paris Exposition were. The IOC did not think of the Paris Exposition Games of 1901 as Olympics. In fact, it is noted in the Dec 2008 issue of the ISOH Journal on p. 4 that "In his autobiographic books, Baron de Coubertin also avoided this description [of referring to the Paris Exposition Games as Olympic Games] in his obviously short critical comments about the sporting events." Moreover the words "Olympic Games" are not used in ihe IOC's invitations to the Paris Exposition Games. Nor are they used in the IOC's own official report of 4th IOC Session in Paris in 1901. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 3. Your point "If they weren't Olympics why did they bother to get involved at all?". The fact is that the IOC did not get involved with the Paris Exposition Games in any capacity. The only capacity that Baron Pierre de Coubertin was involved at the Paris Exposition was as the Secretary General of the U.S.F.S.A. Here is another quote from p.4 of the Dec 2008 issue of the Journal of Olympic History:

"On May 1898, Coubertin installed an Organising Committee for the Olympic Games in Paris 1900 with Count Charles de la Rochefoucauld as its President. This Committee put together a programme for the Games. The organisers of the World Exposition opposed, because they wanted their own sporting events. The director of the World Exposition nominated a committee of their own under the leadership of Daniel Merillon and charged that committee to organise the sporting events. Count de la Rochefoucauld did not wish to become involved with this and decided to dissolve his Organising Committee on April 22, 1899. Coubertin then lost his direct influence on the sporting events of the World Exposition. He could only invite foreign athletes to participate ..."

"Why did they bother to get involved at all?" The IOC tried to run the show before the show got started. But there was a showdown with the organising committee of the Paris Exposition. Baron Pierre de Coubertin lost and the IOC was not in charge. The Games at the Paris Exposition was no more referred to as "Olympic Games". Not because Baron Pierre de Coubertin did not want them called that. But because the organising committee of the Paris Exposition did not want them called that. They viewed it as a conflict of interest and of giving Baron Pierre de Coubertin more control than they felt he was entitled to (after all he had not funded the Games of hte Paris Exposition). Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 4. I have already provided an IOC source that has nothing to do with the organisers of the Paris Exposition. That source is the official report of the 4th IOC Session in Paris. Nowhere, I repeat nowhere, in that report is the Paris Exposition Games referred to as "Olympic Games". I have also provided Baron Pierre de Coubertin's own autobiographies (including "Memoires Olympiques" where he is very negative about the Paris Exposition in 1900) as a source since nowhere in his autobiographies does he refer to the Games at the Paris Exposition as Olympic Games. The historical fact that "the Paris Exposition Games" were not "Olympic Games" is more than adequately met by the fact they were not called "Olympic Games" in any of those IOC references and were usually referred to as "sporting events from the World Exposition" (p. 5, Dec 2008, Special Issue). Nor were they called Olympic Games on any official poster, medal or ticket. Nor were there any IOC regulations or rules for any of the sporting events. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 5. The best secondary sources that I have come across are the two that I have already quoted. They make it clear that the sporting events of the Paris Exposition were not called "Olympic Games" (and have already quoted them with a number of examples). The Dec 2008 issue goes further than that and even discusses which of the events might be worthy of being part of an "Olympic Games". However, the historical fact is that the IOC was not in charge or in control. Therefore, claiming that the sporting events at the Paris Exposition were part of the IOC's series of "Olympic Games" in retrospect is an outright historical fraud. Obviously, the present day official line of the International Olympic Committee is that what happened in Paris was "Olympic Games". But that is a dishonest claim. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What do I want? Only what I asked for at the very top of this discussion. I want all articles that are "Paris Exposition of 1900" specific to say: "The sports events at the Paris Exposition were not recognised as Olympic Games by the IOC during the event, nor in 1901 at the 4th IOC Session in Paris." adding "Nor were they under the auspices of the IOC." I am not asking for "There were no Olympic Games at the Paris Exposition in 1900" even though that is historical fact. No Olympic historian wants to offend the sensibilities of the International Olympic Committee (although it personally does not bother me). But historical fact is historical fact: "The sports events at the Paris Exposition were not recognised as Olympic Games by the IOC during the event, nor in 1901 at the 4th IOC Session in Paris. Nor were they under the auspices of the IOC." I have provided more than enough excellent primary and secondary references for this request. Can we at least agree on this so that I can pay more attention to what is going on with the football on the television instead of burning my eyeballs on Wikipedia? Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Another wall of text adding little to the discussion. Lets ignore any further talk of 1906 shall we, its not relevant to the 1900 discussion. All of this is still just an omission of the term Olympic Games, mostly due to the Exposition refusing to use the term. Nothing yet quoted or provided shows that the IOC did not consider an Olympic Games to have taken place. You've provided two non-exellent sources neither of which anyone else has seen and given your previous misinterpretation and misquoting of sources I for one am not prepared to accept anything from on good faith. What can we agree on? The IOC did not have control over the Games. They did not fund them. They did set up a committee and the Exposition committee hijacked the plans and ran things themselves. To me this is no different to the modern Games in which the host city is responsible for the organising committee that plans events and funds the Games. The Baron sent out the invitations to the events, this would not have happened in the same way without his input; even if the Exposition organisers did not see him as acting on behalf of the IOC and the Olympics. This is worth a mention in relevant articles but the way you have been putting the idea forward seems to suggest that the IOC had no intention of staging an Olympics in Paris at the same time as the Exposition with a similar programme of events to that which occured. Basement12 (T.C) 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What we agree on:

1. The IOC did not have control over the sports events at the Paris Exposition in 1900.

2. The IOC did not fund the sports events at the Paris Exposition in 1900.

3. Baron Pierre de Coubertin sent out international invitations on behalf of the organisers of the Paris Exposition (noting that the organisers were not the IOC).

What we disagree on:

I don't agree with anything else that you have said in your last paragraph and I most certainly do not mis-cite. Also, your comment regarding Good Faith is against Wikipedia policy. But let's not worry about what we cannot agree on. Let's progress with what we do agree on so that we can conclude this unnecessarily long discussion where I have been compelled to repeat myself multiple times. I suggest that you write a small paragraph for the article here in this discussion. If there is anything I disagree with I will say so here. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record Nipsonanomhmata I don't think you are mis-citing as such; I do think that your strong opinions on the subject mean you interpret some of the concent of the sources you are using in a different manner to myself and some of the others who have read them -hence I think that there is a chance we may also have differing interpretations of the sources I haven't seen. I apologise for my hasty wording before, you having a different interpretation is fine, but it means a consensus needs to be reached based on what all users think. If you are the only one holding your point of view then you may have to back down.

As for suitable content I think your three points above sum up what I would accept going into the article, though not all of it would be required in the lead. Any such paragraph must not claim that the IOC didn't consider 1900 an Olympics. It should say that the IOC intially tried organising the Games but then control was passed over to/taken by (whatever wording is used I don't think it should imply that this was done because the IOC had given up on the idea of a 1900 Paris Olympics) and that the Exposition's organising committee then scrapped the IOC's schedule replacing it with the 5 month long programme of events that occured. On the subject of funding the fact that the IOC did not pay for the Games should be included but should be accompanied by details of who did pay and what they paid for e.g. advertising, venues, medals etc. Mention that de Coubertin sent the invitations but did not do so in his capacity as an IOC member is fine. Again though it should not be implied that this was how the IOC wanted things to be nor that they did not still consider the new schedule to be an Olympics. I'd like to see what opinions other users have before settling on any changes to be made. Basement12 (T.C) 21:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If we aren't adding anything to the lead then there is already enough information in the article itself that covers what you have just noted and I wasn't responsible for adding any of that. By the way I did notice that the phrase "gold medallist" was being used a couple of times. This I did correct because there were no gold medals given out to athletes at Paris in 1900. So we can't call them gold medallists. We can only call them winners or champions or "came 1st" in event. I think that when you get a chance to read the references that I've cited that aren't available on the Internet that you will say exactly what I have said above. But until that happens I have to respect where you're all at. Thanks for the discussion. Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate

I've nominated the image Josh Sundquist (alpine skier from the United States pictured at the 2006 Paralympics in Torino) as a Featured picture candidate, but it seems to have some problems with the copyright. Could someone here who has an email they use as a wikipedia user, be willing to confirm the copyright, maybe email the image uploader, or add to the discussion in other ways, at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Josh Sundquist. Bib (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neil Brooks/archive1. Gold medallist swimmer from Australia. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject template

Does WikiProject Olympics use a bot that automatically places the {{WikiProject Olympics}} template on the talk page of articles in certain categories, such as for example the Xenobot and some other bots do? If not, could it be arranged? If so, could the Paralympics task force be added, with |Paralympics=yes for the articles in Paralympics categories? Bib (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the project does not use such bot and boy I wish I knew it existed many months ago, when I tagged manually loads of articles! I guess we can submit a request to the bot in the project's name. I'll see what is needed. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. Thank you. No, I didn't know about it either, until very recently. Bib (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First hurdle: it appears it's necessary to have a subpage with a list of categories that the bot should scan for articles to be tagged or assessed. This project has THOUSANDS of categories... I bet the most important and general categories already have its pages tagged and most likely assessed, so I'm not sure where to start... and frankly, I don't have that much time to take care of it all. Perhaps we should do this gradually and then go adding categories to the bot-scanned project subpage. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This code can help: {{category tree all|Olympics|showcount=off}} , it will take some time to click to show every category, but not too long. Then the [+] sign can probably be removed by using 'search and replace' in a text edit program such as Words. Bib (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're a genius, Bib :) Thanks a lot! Parutakupiu (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you urself. A tiny bit less clicking with the following code: {{category tree all|Olympics|showcount=off|depth=4}} Bib (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Even with that help, I've collected 11 pages (!) of categories... there's plenty more! Plus, I'm not counting Olympians! This will be a headache. Besides, I'm thinking this bot will short-circuit with this project. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Have clicked alot. (I did not include all the sport categories in category 'Olympic sports', such as 'Basketball', only included 'Basketball at the Olympics' and similar. Removed duplicates.) I have added the categories to the wikipedia sandbox for safekeep, Click here to view. Now it needs to be figured out how to add the name of each category between [[ and ]], such as this # [[:Category:NAME]]. I couldn't figure out how to add it non-manually in my text edit program (OpenOffice). Bib (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the bot won't short-circuit, yeah you're right, this project need a big bot to handle over 6000 categories. Bib (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Amazing job, Bib! I envy your patience, hehe. I just used Auto Wiki Browser to change automatically category name into # [[:Category:category name]] for the more than 6000 categories that you exhaustively collected. I've put that list on one of my sandboxes. Now we just have to see if Xenobot can handle such a masive task. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wohoo. Very very great. Thanks for setting this up, and for the positive attitude. Fingers crossed for Xenobot's powers. Bib (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I chose not have the bot results presented in a project page, so I hope I can notice project-tagged pages being changed by Xenobot. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bib, could you be so kind to move all categories concerning the Paralympics to a different subpage (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Paralympics/Categories), because it's needed for the bot to add this taskforce during the tagging process. Thanks! Parutakupiu (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Removed them from the Olympics Categories to the Paralympics subpage. Bib (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Make them "stubby"?

I had already expressed my concern last year on using Olympic flags for some countries in all 1980 Summer Olympics-related articles, even for competitions, were athletes wore uniforms with their national flags (as approved by images from official report provided by me). That was ignored, I don't see neither flags changed nor even notes of the fact that competitors wore uniforms with national flags attached. Although once again, sources were provided, and I don't know what is needed more than this.

And now it's another "top". Total and individual scores provided by me from official reports with scoring system explanations were removed completely and replaced by totals only with no explanations, in gymnastics at the Olympics articles. Let's compare for women's team competition at the 1980 Olympics: earlier (see women's events section), now. The same is for 1976:earlier, now. What's the aim of the project? To write short stubs, rather than articles, at least for some topics? Cmapm (talk) 09:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's cited, relevant, and not too in-depth as to warrant the article unreadable, then there's no reason to exclude this information. I wouldn't take Klk252's edits as some form of accepted style of restriction on these articles. Indeed, they offer little justification for their edits and without a clear explanation for such removals, you should not feel in the wrong to revert such changes. Anyone with a very good reason for such edits will usually leave a message on the talk page... Also, quite strangely, Klk252 edited almost exclusively within the month of August 2009 and his since stopped. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Near-duplicate navboxes

What should be done about these two navboxes?

{{OlympicSports}}

• oldest navbox;
• links to the Olympic history of each current, formerly and yet-to-be featured sports (i.e. "Sport at the Olympic Games");
• transcluded in such articles.

{{Olympic sports}}

• recent navbox;
• links to the main article of each current, formerly and yet-to-be featured sports (i.e. "Sport"), although golf and rugby union are still indicated as "former sports";
• transcluded only in articles of sports featured at the Summer Olympics.

They have an almost identical layout and that will confuse readers/editors. What's your say? Parutakupiu (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Be bold and redirect the latter to the former, and intergrate any usefulness with the original. Lugnuts (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I created the latter template on the basis that people might like to navigate between the Olympic sports themselves, rather than just that articles about the sports at the Olympics. Would a change of style do much to distinguish the two? On the other hand, the targets of the links are very much implied by the article on which the template in placed. If a merge is warranted - is there a logical way to incorporate both a link to the sport itself and the sport at the Olympics? Having one of these templates on a sports article which only linked to Olympics-specific article wouldn't seem right or obvious to readers.

On a related matter: the vast majority of the "X at the Olympics" articles are a little bit underwhelming. They are pretty much devoid of prose and serve primarily as places for tables of figures. Ice hockey at the Olympic Games is really the model article we should be heading towards, but much work is needed. I really hope interested parties take to improving these articles at some point in the near future. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 20:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess that if each navbox is only transcluded in the articles to which they link, there's no problem. What bugged me the most was seeing both navbox in Olympic sports. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest just using the Sports at the Olympics template on that article then. Otherwise, maybe that template could make its targets more obvious by being renamed "sports competitions at the Olympics"? I don't really think that's necessary, but it is a viable option I suppose. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should only leave the {{OlympicSports}} on Olympic sports. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Central American and Caribbean Games

Hi, I wanted to bring to the attention of this WikiProject the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games Article. The games will be held in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, from July 17, 2010 to August 1, 2010. There is lots to be done, especially related to the following red linked articles; please see if you can contribute in any way:

Sports

• Archery
• Artistic gymnastics
• Athletics
• Badminton
• Baseball
• Basketball
• Baech volleyball
• Bowling
• Boxing
• Diving
• Equestrian
• Fencing
• Field hockey

• Association football
• Team handball
• Judo
• Karate
• Canoeing
• Cycling
• Modern pentathlon
• Racquetball
• Rhythmic gymnastics
• Roller skating
• Rowing
• Sailing
• Shooting

• Softball
• Swimming
• Synchronused swimming
• Squash
• Table tennis
• Taekwondo
• Tennis
• Triathlon
• Volleyball
• Water Polo
• Water skiing
• Weightlifting
• Wrestling

Medal table

not much can be done here since the games have not started but at least the article can be started;

for the countries use the following template Template:Infobox Country at the Central American and Caribbean Games

Rank	Nation	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total
1	Puerto Rico
2	Mexico
3	Colombia
4	Venezuela
5	Suriname
6	Dominican Republic
7	Jamaica
8	El Salvador
9	Barbados
10	Guatemala
11	Panama
12	Costa Rica
13	Netherlands Antilles
14	Trinidad and Tobago
15	Cayman Islands
16	Virgin Islands
17	Guyana
18
19	Bahamas
20	Haiti
21	Honduras
22	Grenada
23	Saint Kitts and Nevis
24	Saint Lucia
25	Nicaragua
26	Antigua and Barbuda
27	Bermuda
28	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

thanks in advance. El Johnson (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles

A request has been made to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on categories and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, Xenobot Mk V (talk · contribs) looks for a {{stub}} template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

Parutakupiu (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI the main portion of this task is commencing and it looks like it will tag about 45,000 articles new to the project. –xeno^talk 22:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh my gosh... Thanks for the warning! :D Parutakupiu (talk) 23:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

•  Task complete. Approximately 45775 edits. Start here and go backwards =) –xeno^talk 17:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Incredible work. Thanks once again, xeno! Parutakupiu (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I saw the bot going through, but that's a ton of articles tagged. Courcelles (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

New FAC

• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Peter Evans (swimmer)/archive1

This gold-medal winning swimmer from 1980 is at FAC. Many thanks YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing Olympics sport links

I recently made a template (Template:GamesSport) which can list a competition's sports somewhat automatically. Having discussed this at Talk:2010 Commonwealth Games#Link_to_the_games_sport_page_vs_sport_page, I recommend that we use a similar system on the Olympic pages. This style clarifies what the links actually link to, and inserts a little, visually descriptive pictogram at the same time. Furthermore, I've been using this template on other "games" pages as I think it greatly simplifies the task of creating these sports sections. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 10:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

2010 Central American and Caribbean Games

Hi, I wanted to bring to the attention of this WikiProject the 2010 Central American and Caribbean Games Article. The games will be held in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, from July 17, 2010 to August 1, 2010. There is lots to be done, especially related to the following red linked articles; please see if you can contribute in any way:

• Archery
• Artistic gymnastics
• Athletics
• Badminton
• Baseball
• Basketball
• Baech volleyball
• Bowling
• Boxing
• Diving
• Equestrian
• Fencing
• Field hockey

• Association football
• Team handball
• Judo
• Karate
• Canoeing
• Cycling
• Modern pentathlon
• Racquetball
• Rhythmic gymnastics
• Roller skating
• Rowing
• Sailing
• Shooting

• Softball
• Swimming
• Synchronused swimming
• Squash
• Table tennis
• Taekwondo
• Tennis
• Triathlon
• Volleyball
• Water Polo
• Water skiing
• Weightlifting
• Wrestling

thanks in advance. El Johnson (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sailors at the Summer Olympics

FYI - I have nominated 27 list articles related to Olympic sailors for deletion. Since this is the most applicable WikiProject for such articles, I thought I'd let you know in case you'd like to contribute to the discussions here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sailors at the Summer Olympics. Thanks. SnottyWong ^confabulate 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cycling events between 1912 and 1932

I'm wondering if there is any consensus on how to treat the men's road cycling events between 1912 and 1932? Individual articles indicate they were held as time trials; however, {{Footer olympic champions road cycling men}} includes their winners amongst the road race winners and List of Olympic medalists in cycling (men) treats the 1924 edition as a road race. I've already asked at Talk:Cycling at the Summer Olympics but with no answers I guess nobody watches that page. Severo^TC 12:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

New FAC for Mark Kerry

• • Mark Kerry – Discussion

A FAC has been started for this Australian Olympic gold-medal winning swimmer of 1980 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Medal totals

A recent (anonymous) edit to the Athletics at the 1936 Summer Olympics page changed the medal total for Canada from 3 to 6 bronze medals. How are we counting medals in these tables? The lists show that Canada won bronze in three events, but one of those events was a relay with four medal winners. So does the relay count as one medal, or four? PaulGS (talk)

The relay counts as a single medal for medal table purposes - I've reverted the edit that changed this Basement12 (T.C) 18:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD discussion of interest

Athletics at the 2010 South American Games – Women's 4 x 400m relay has been nominated for deletion. You can join the discussion here. Lugnuts (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

New FAC for Quietly Confident Quartet

• • Quietly Confident Quartet – Discussion

A FAC has been started for the Australian Olympic gold-medal winning relay team of 1980 YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympics country infoboxes

{{Infobox Country Youth Olympics}} {{Infobox Youth Olympics Great Britain}}

Hi, as the Youth Olympic Games are about to formally commence in a few days, I think that we should create separate per-country infoboxes for the Youth Olympics. This is in line with the per-country infoboxes used in the Olympics and Paralympics. I've decided to be bold and create the two templates on the right as samples. The first (template location here) is the central template used as a foundation for the per-country infoboxes. I have created a country infobox for Great Britain (template location here). I'm seeking approval for this action. If approved, I'll replicate the Great Britain infobox for all other countries (Algeria... Zimbabwe). Any comments? Best, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 08:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Manual of Style (Games summary – Nations) would also have to be updated to account for Youth Olympics content. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 08:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey AngChenrui. I don't see any problem in creating these new set of templates. I think you did a nice job at that. As a template freak, I would have thought of a way to incorporate the Youth Olympics into the existing infoboxes, to avoid duplicating templates for an ammount of new data that is not that big and different. But that's just me... I think Andrwsc's opinion (Olympics infoboxes creator) is far more pertinent. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is not too much info right now on the Youth Olympics. Of course, on the other hand, incorporating the Youth Olympics content into a current template would be contentious, especially since past discussions as I recall called for the separation of the senior Olympics from the Youth Olympics (in templates etc). I've contacted Andrewsc, awaiting his comments. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 12:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'm fine with any decision. I'm just all for saving. ;) Parutakupiu (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

←To be honest, I have concerns about the notability of the Youth Olympic Games results at the same level of detail as the Olympic Games, and I think that it may be difficult to justify the same article structure as we use for the full Games. But having said that, and assuming we have consensus for these pages, I think the code you copied from {{Infobox Country Youth Olympics}} contains many features that are overkill and unnecessary for the YOG. For example, we certainly don't need or want a History section with links to future Games. We will not need summary-level articles (e.g. Great Britain at the Youth Olympic Games) for many years. And when those parts are needed, we can probably generate it automatically instead of using customized per-NOC lists. Therefore, I do not think you should create per-country infoboxes, but instead use the single meta-template for all articles. I've taken the liberty of updating the code, and adding the infobox to Great Britain at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics to show how this should be done. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The features... perhaps they were overkill, cause I lifted them from the original Olympics template. Thanks for the advice. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This looks very nice, but I also have concerns about YOG notability. We'll see how much coverage they get in a couple weeks, but I don't think every participant/event should necessarily automatically have articles and the detail used elsewhere. Reywas92^Talk 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bye then to Template:Infobox Youth Olympics Great Britain? (Proposed deletion) ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 04:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Pages naming convention for 2010 Summer Youth Olympics

Hello, I am from Canada and am interested to contribute to articles related to Canadian participation in the games. I have noticed that page Canada at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics includes links to particular sports and these links are called '<SPORT> at the 2010 Youth Summer Olympics' while number of actual pages created for Canada and other countries are called as '<SPORT> at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics'. Before starting to contribute to the content I wanted to know community’s opinion on pages naming standard instead of doing redirects or editing all/some links. I wanted to start from fencing, for instance, and found a stub page that demonstrates the situation Fencing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. Please let me know your opinion. Thank you. No troll (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The main article is 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, so all articles need to be named as "... at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics". — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as per the IOC, it's "Summer Youth Olympic Games" and "Winter Youth Olympic Games". Parutakupiu (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Since we have an agreement, I can change the links on Canada at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics to the articles that do not exist yet, but what of the articles that have been already created with reversed wording (same situation I noted on Britain page)? Do I continue working on the stub page for fencing that contains 1 line and named incorrectly or create a new page with correct naming, while requesting to delete the former? No troll (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In cases like this you should move pages to the correct names to preserve attribution. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

<Year> in <Country> categories

I have a question which came up after Darius Dhlomo (talk · contribs) added Netherlands at the 2010 European Championships in Athletics on my watchlist to Category:2010 in the Netherlands. The 2010 European Athletics Championships were staged, however, in Spain, not in the Netherlands, which is why the parent article is in Category:2010 in Spain. Darius pointed me out to Argentina at the 1991 Pan American Games being categorised in Category:1991 in Argentina, but this makes just as much sense as my Netherlands in Spain example. The 1991 Pan American Games took place in Cuba, so why is this categorised as "in Argentina"? We wouldn't categorise Battle of the Somme in Category:1916 in the United Kingdom because the event happened in France – so why is this done with athletics teams? Any insight and explanation would be appreciated. Jared Preston (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Naming race distances

Hi, input is needed into the following discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Athletics_race_distances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.171.61 (talk) 17:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Gender terminology in YOG event articles

Hello. I would like some input from participants of this project on an issue that has come up. User No troll has raised a concern on my talk page regarding the use of "boys" and "girls" over "cadet male" and "cadet female" in the article namespace for Fencing events at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. I had originally moved these articles with the intention of conforming with the terminology of other events in the Games. In the interest of saving space, I point you to my talk page, which I have linked above, to see the specifics of his comments. I would like to ask this project whether "boys" and "girls" are appropriately used as is, or whether they should be changed into something more "professional" such as "men" and "women" currently used in other Olympics articles. Thanks for your input. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the YOG is unlike any of the other Games, so I don't think you can use that to argue for "men" and "women". But this should be simple: we should use the same terminology as our reliable sources. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorces call events as Cadet Male/Female Foil/Saber/Epee event. This was an original naming of the articles. Male/Female is used for YOG, while in Senior events it's Men/Women. No event in fencing is named as boys/girls. I also do not see a need in a template hosting links to other result pages. It can be done via "See Also" section. No troll (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a concensus on this issue? Should I move pages to their original names? No troll (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we do. Based on the official sources (IOC) the fencing events should be renamed to "Cadet male/female...". There's a lot of inconsistency in the YOG event naming: many sports use Men/Women, or Junior Men/Women, or Youth Men/Women, aside from Boys/Girls. I think whoever decided to name every event article as "Boys'/Girls'..." in Wikipedia wanted to keep things simple, despite not following the official naming. As for the navigation template, it's been standardly used in Olympic articles. Imagine a "See also" section in an athletics or swimming event article with links to all the others... then you can see why this template is used. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite all the inconsistencies, it seems all the YOG broadcasts have simply used "men" and "women". For example, see the fencing broadcast. It is consistent throughout all the videos released by the organizing committee. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 01:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Eight sports use the simple "Men/Women" naming... I would still give preference to written sources. If the final report confirms all these different namings, then that should be enough. Parutakupiu (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we've arrived at the following solution to the issue:

1. Name the articles for YOG the way an actual event is called in a report
2. Change the template to Men/Women OR make it more flexible, so Boy/Male/Man etc. can be supplied as a parameter to it. If more flexibility is of prefernce who would be able to create modified version of template? No troll (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Each navigational template is specific per sport and per Games, so all you need to do is change the links appropriately. I think though that we should wait for the YOG to be concluded before applying structural changes in these article series. Let the editing rush fade out... Parutakupiu (talk) 15:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

By report, I presume you mean the event reports released by the organizing committee such as this? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 19:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The Games final report. I doubt it will present different namings to the ones shown in those event reports, anyway. The thing is it usually takes quite some time (i.e. months) to be released by the OCOG, so the event reports are the closest thing to an official report. Parutakupiu (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware there is a Games final report. Could you link me to an example? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The LA84 Foundation website has all the Olympic Games official reports from 1896 to 2006. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a private company that is publishing some of the reports with permission of Olympic commettee. It has not published, for instance the results of Winter games in Canada. Being a private foundation LA84 is not an original source of information, and therefore is not responsible for errors. We do not have to wait for Youth games results being re-published some time in the future by this private company, since we have official results by organizers of the games.No troll (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said we'd have to wait for this organization to publish the official report. Even the Beijing 2008 report is still to be published and that hasn't stop us from editing the 2008 articles. I just said that once it's out it will provide the final, definitive and uncontested namings for each event. But by no means we're limited to their publishing; of course the OCOG event reports are more than reliable for this case. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Youth Olympics article for deletion

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Country page purpose: why individual sport results are within this article?

I suppose these results should be within specific sport articles? No troll (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The results are presented for each country, as per past Olympic games: Russia at the 2008 Summer Olympics. The pages should also be consistent with other NOCs at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, so that's why there are Wiki contributers who work across the sports, putting the results in each of the NOC pages. GreenB.live (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not about to change this, but it makes little sense to me when the results of particular nationals are cut and pasted on country's page out of context of competition that is presented fully in a separate article. It only clutters the page with results representations that are sport-specific and make it difficult to read. To me country page should only contain the placement of a particular athlete (medal or not) and links to the overall event results. If an athlete has outstanding results this could be part a of his/her personal article. Here is the proposal: country page is only to denote the final placement and host links to the sport specific pages, this way it would be much cleaner, easier to read and better stuctured. No troll (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world these pages would not simply be a cut and paste of athlete results from the event article but would also contain a significant amount of prose detailing the athlete's performances see e.g.United States at the 2008 Summer Olympics or Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Basement12 (T.C) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Olympics to-do

Hi. The template, which appears on the talk pages of articles relating to the Olympics and Paralympics, asks for editors' help in adding full results for all editions of the Olympic Games. Might it also invite editors to add full results for all editions of the Paralympic Games? The pages on the Paralympics still need a lot of work in filling in results - a lot more so than pages on the Olympics. Raising their profile might help. Aridd (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Olympics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Olympics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox medal order

Hello. Quick question - what order should the medals go in the infobox for an individual? Should they be grouped together by year, then colour, or should all the golds be listed first, then silvers, etc? Lugnuts (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

First color, then year. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems in athletics/Olympics articles

I've been checking through various articles with copyright infringements from this copyright investigation. Among them are Olympic athletics results articles (such as Athletics at the 1980 Summer Olympics – Men's 400 metres) which have sections of prose which is copied. However, the editor does not recall where he found the source. Does anyone here know of sources which cover this kind of Olympic material in such detail? I am presuming that the source will be from no more than one or two places as the descriptions are quite similar. The source will be American (given the spelling of favorite) and is a retrospective written after the event (i.e. not a contemporary report).

Finding these sources will not only enable us to remove the violations properly, but it means the sources can be used to write original material and can be linked to for reader reference. Any ideas anyone? The articles I've listed below all contain copyright violations and will likely account for roughly a quarter of the total problem articles when I've finished searching through the edits. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 12:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot

It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. This is going to affect several biographies of olympians, as well as the articles mentioned above. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

discuss this

We're now at the stage where the 'bot is ready to roll, and no-one has voiced an objection. (Indeed, to the contrary: Several people want to go further, and mass delete the articles.)

If the 'bot goes ahead, this will probably light up some people's watchlists like Diwali. Be warned. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

There's tons of articles relating to the Olympics in some way. This is just one of them. Lugnuts (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Navigation Boxes

I was looking around at some of the Olympic athlete pages like Apolo Ohno and Michael Phelps and I noticed how their navigation boxes at the bottom of the pages were kinda simple. I looked the Dutch version of nl:Bonnie Blair and I noticed how they had their boxes put into a surrounding "Olympic Champions" template. So I asked Nihiltres about making something of that sort and he/she thought it would be better if were a standardized system for all Olympic athletes first. And I thought there could be a way to include World, Pan Pacific, etc boxes into the system as well. Any thoughts? oncamera^(t) 23:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

The Beijing men's cycling road race finally has a full podium. Davide Rebellin, who originally finished second, was long since stripped of his silver medal, but third and fourth-place finishers Fabian Cancellara and Alexandr Kolobnev were sort of in limbo as to whether they'd get new medals. Per the source linked at the outset, they either already have (it's a few days old) or will very soon. How best to go about updating not only those riders' articles, but articles like Switzerland at the 2008 Summer Olympics and Russia at the 2008 Summer Olympics? I notice that the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table article considers, when a gold or silver medalist is stripped, that the new gold, or silver medalist has lost whatever medal they previously had. I find this a bit strange, since I highly doubt Cancellara has been (or will be) asked to give back his bronze medal. What should the medals table for his nation's article show? Kolobnev is a bit simpler, since he didn't win any medal in 2008, but it probably should still be noted that his bronze came about at the disqualification of another athlete. Further, for Cancellara, is the Category:Olympic bronze medalists for Switzerland no longer applicable? Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 20:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

List of 1992 Summer Olympics medal winners

A brand new medal winners list to add to the collection. Feel free to jump in, if interested! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed creation of WikiProject Multi-sport events

As I was looking through the proposal for a WikiProject Commonwealth Games, it struck in my mind that a WikiProject coordinating all the articles on multi-sport events would be a better idea. As you can see here and here, there are numerous multi-sports events in existence today, not to count a few I know of that isn't in those lists. Many of these articles are in a sorrowful state, with no direct coverage by any WikiProject (WikiProject Sports is too broad). The Commonwealth Games can be a task force under this WikiProject. As for the Olympics — it certainly is significant enough to stand on its own. It'll just be related to the new WikiProject. Any comments/support? I am willing to develop the WikiProject, if its approved. Cheers, ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Update Following the proposal at WikiProject Council, the WikiProject has now been set up (here). We are seeking more participants; if you are able to and wish to commit, you can always sign up at the project page! Thank you. ANGCHENRUI ^Talk♨ 10:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Commonwealth Games WikiProject

FYI, there is a proposal to create a WP:WikiProject Commonwealth Games, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Commonwealth Games.

76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners – red-links and possibility of FL

I'm thinking of getting List of 2010 Summer Youth Olympics medal winners to FL-status. The only thing bogging it down is the number of red-links present in the article. My idea is to remove the links where it is red (non-existent article). However, WP:OLYCON has a convention on links for every athlete listed in competition results. Of course, I'm not sure if it applies in this case since we are looking at the Youth Olympics and not the senior Olympics. I also had a chat with Dabomb87, the FL director, who commented on removing the links; he had no objection to it. Should I go ahead and remove the red-links? There's no way an article inked almost everywhere in red would pass FLC. ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 05:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Outline of the Olympics

There is no Outline of the Olympics.

To create one, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|the Olympics|The Olympics}}

Then press Save page and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40#What do you think about making an Outline of Birds?

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with Olympic Games (a featured article)? I fail to see how a list of article name and wall of navigation boxes is any more useful than browsing the nicely-linked summary articles we have now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How do you browse links in an article? Slowly. You basically have to read or scan through paragraphs to find the links. How do you browse links in a structured list? Fast. They're all listed right there for you to choose from like a menu or table of contents. Outlines generally have more coverage on a single page, so you don't have to click around as much - most of the links related to the subject are on that page. Outlines also show the relationship between topics (i.e., what belongs to what). See tree structure for more benefits. The Transhumanist 23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding United Arab Republic to Template:FlagIOC

How do I add the IOC code of RAU to the above template for the 1960 Summer Olympics? IE {{flagIOC|RAU|1960}}. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

We decided some time ago to not use pre-standard country codes, but to consistently use the current codes for all years to prevent confusion. for example, Japan at the 1960 Summer Olympics uses JPN, not GIA. So in this case, use {{flagIOC|EGY|1960 Summer}}. The RAU country code can be displayed ih the infobox, which I have just added. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 10:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I defaulted it to Egypt in the first instance. Lugnuts (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Notability of Youth Olympic Games events

This is an RFC opened in response to a deletion discussion regarding the events of the Youth Olympic Games, which was closed as no consensus, in order to determine whether such events are notable enough to have their own articles. All comments are welcome. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Notice placed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion of how WP:NSPORT should be applied, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 6#Youth Olympic Games. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I certainly think that all events at these Olympics are notable as history articles but not as news event articles. Let me clarify what I mean by an example: there should probably not be a page on the 10k race walk at the "insert particular date" Youth Olympic games, but there should be a page on the 10k racewalk at the youth Olympic games that documents the race history over the years. If there is a particular event that is notable it can get a stand alone article by passing WP:GNG. MATThematical (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Asian Games

Please note the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Asian Games.

65.93.12.43 (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Country flag IOC alias GDR

Hello. Can anyone explain, why is the flag of United German team used during 1968 Games? To my mind, there should be the flag of the German Democratic republic --VovanA (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

According to photographs in the 1968 official report, the "United Team flag" was used at those Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

International Olympic Movement

International Olympic Movement has been prodded for deletion... maybe it should redirect somewhere? 64.229.101.17 (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of London 2012 Olympic youth ambassadors

The article London 2012 Olympic youth ambassadors has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references and only a few online mentions, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stoyanka Kurbatova

The article Stoyanka Kurbatova has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Stub of BLP is well over 2 years old with no non-primary, non-originally-researched sources

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

template:NPCin1984WinterParalympics

{{NPCin1984WinterParalympics}} was nominated for deletion. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

List of venues for the Olympics

Quick question. I am working on Olympic venues from the first Olympics in 1896 at Athens to the 2016 Games in Rio. Do we want them all on the list of Summer Olympic, Winter Olympic, and overall venues even though the names of the venues may change for the 2012 London, 2014 Sochi, and 2016 Rio games between now and when they host the games? Please advise. Chris (talk) 15:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

IF, I understand what you mean, then IMO yes? Do you mean for example adding every Sochi venue to Venues of the 2014 Winter Olympics even though the names may change? Bib (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is for an overall list of venues for Summer from 1896 Athens to 2008 Beijing and Winter from 1924 Chamonix to 2010 Vancouver. Should 2012 London, 2014 Sochi, and 2016 Rio be included with their respective lists? Make sure that this is clarified. Chris (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Aha, got it. I still vote yes. I don't know if there are wiki rules on stuff like that. Bib (talk) 16:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. I will get this loaded into what I am doing ASAP> Chris (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

2020 Winter Youth Olympics

Shouldn't there be an article at 2020 Winter Youth Olympics ? According to the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics article, several cities have moved bids from 2016 to 2020. 65.94.71.179 (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really- we didn't even have 2022 FIFA World Cup as its won article until three minutes before Qatar got the tournament. (And I don't think I would get any argument saying the World Cup gets more RS attention than the Winter Youth Olympics will.) Maybe when we get to the point where the final candidate cities are chosen, but more likely when the host city is chosen, that will be the time to create the article. Courcelles 03:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say once the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics have been officially announced, and when there are reliable sources stating that at least two cities are bidding/or are interested in bidding, then it can be created. As far as I'm aware there are no cities that have indicated interest in bidding for the 2020s that are not listed on the 2016 page, and thus are already adequately covered until further information arises. Ravendrop (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Official Vancouver 2010 site

The Official Vancouver 2010 site has moved all its pages, with all its results, to http://72.35.10.20/. Bib (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD of interest

Discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

CfD of interest

this maybe of interest to people here. Lugnuts (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, merci --Geneviève (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No probs. A follow-up discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And a further discussion can be found here. Lugnuts (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Calendar format

Hey, anyone here can provide a standard format for creating a calendar? because i have issue here, which related also. Standardize will help the dispute. Thank you. --Aleenf1 08:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Aleen, good work but I have no idea for calendars. --Geneviève (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I request third opinion and some help, many thanks! --Aleenf1 13:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Aleenf1 I respect you and I am sorry for all of this, but the word "ceremonies" is in the centre of all calendars. I don't understand what you don't understand about that. Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Empty Country at Games articles

Do we have a policy for empty Country at Year Olympic Games articles? I see absolutely no reason to keep empty articles like Haiti at the 1995 Pan American Games, Haiti at the 1999 Pan American Games, and Gambia at the 1988 Summer Olympics. When a country did not win a single medal and has few athletes, there is no need for a separate article. It's highly unlikely they will ever be expanded (and our concerns should be elsewhere), and those with only a couple competitors should be merged. I would really like these substubs to be redirected, but I didn't want backlash if I did it myself. Reywas92^Talk 22:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no need for the ones, like the three example you give, that merely state such and such a country competed at the games. However, once a list of athletes and results is included I think they should be kept (and I'm pretty sure that has been the consensus). That being said, I'd rather those without athletes/results have them added rather than being deleted. Ravendrop 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

But would that ever be done for the dozens, if not hundreds of non-winning countries/games? I could understand keeping the Olympics ones, but the Pan Am pages are superfluous. Reywas92^Talk 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe eventually. I don't think they're be much harm in redirecting the empty ones to either the specific game page or the x country at the x games/Olympics page. That way when/if someone updates them the templates is there already for them to work with. Ravendrop 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is better to keep the stub rather than changing to a redirect, as the stub includes the reference to the Olympic report (making it easier for editors to expand the stub), and the infobox and navbox for navigation to other countries and/or other Games. It also provides a direct target from the event results pages when {{flagIOCathlete}} et. al. are used. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not so fast Gambia at the 1988 Summer Olympics has been updated. Intoronto1125 (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ALL articles about countries competing at any Olympic games are notable, regardless if they send 1,001 atheletes or just one. Here is a recent deletion discussion that ended in a keep. All of the "empty" Olympic articles can be expanded, just as the example above has been. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Dispute over calendar format

I and Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs) have disagreement over the calendar, as he keeps the word "ceremonies" centralise, while i prefer to keep all the events standadize, on left. What he does is undo with no reason or nonsense reason. Some links he gave in User talk:Nlu#Calendar format have all but one only centralised, yet still he claim i'm wrong and he is right. So, now i want every opinion from members or editors to standardize the calendar. Thank you. --Aleenf1 15:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on WikiProject Olympics/Archive 12 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: First, let me note by way of background that the issue here is a template–related one, i.e. whether the word "Ceremonies" should be centered or left-aligned as if it was a sporting event, in various calendar templates coming under the purview of this project. A good list of examples of the various templates involved can be found at User talk:Nlu#Calendar format. Second, the rule at Wikipedia is that each article and template stands alone unless there is consensus to make a rule or guideline requiring them to be uniform. No such consensus exists in this case, as far as I can tell. That means that until such consensus is reached that it is inappropriate to insist on making the templates uniform, and repeated insertions and reversions doing so are particularly inappropriate. Third, it is my opinion that the word "Ceremonies" should be left-aligned and not be centered, but I want to emphasize that that's just my personal preference based on the notion that the ceremonies are, when all is considered, just another event at the games. It's also my opinion that all the calendar templates should be uniform, as that contributes to the appearance of Wikipedia.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:28, 28 February 2011 (UTC) The majority of calendars have the word ceremonies centralized. Aleenf1 either cannot see that or his computer is messed up i have no idea. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you want the text left-aligned? It looks better to my eyes. It is completey irrelevant that the ceremonies aren't "events". But center-aligned text looks worse than left-aligned (or right-aligned as appropriate) if the strings are of arbitrary length. Best to keep center-alignment used only for numbers of the same order of magnitude. So with that in mind, I would also suggest left-alignment for the "Venues" column. The zig-zag edge of text with center-alignment looks silly. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

At the end of the say most calendars are formatted in the centre and it looks better that way in my opinion. Moreover, why should we change it? The ceremonies are not actual events that award medals and should be distinct from them, hence the centre allignment. Intoronto1125 (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

1. First, again and again, i'm not sure where Intoronto1125 got the word centralise, and accuse of my computer messed-up is ridiculous. This question i have to ask Andrwsc either he got the "Ceremonies" in Olympics calendar templates centralised or not?
2. Second, following the first one, if Andrswc also got the word left-handed in Olympics calendar templates, who is the man to change it? Then have to asking why he always "undo". Clearly, want to win and not lose is an attitude what i have to mentioning.
3. Third, that is no end and hence, Intoronto1125 cannot conclude everything. If not, then i will not DISCUSS THE DISPUTES and concluded yourself is against the WP:DR. 3 against 1 to left-align, what now?

--Aleenf1 10:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One more, if Intoronto1125 want a probe, then the links are: [9][10][11][12][13] So what you try to do is "trying" to fool other like me or you try to rescue yourself. The name is there. --Aleenf1 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

First of Aleenf1 what is the meaning of hence? Secondly, it would be Intoronto1125 and I, not I and Intoronto1125. Thirdly, I used hence to prove my point, not to close the case. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to talk about grammar here, keep the main discussion. What Andrwsc said on his talk page. --Aleenf1 17:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinion: I, personally, like it better when everything is in the "align=left" column, there is no need to center the word ceremonies. Kante4 (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kante4's opinion. Saint9016 (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I added the calendar for the 2012 Paralympics, or I copied it, with the ceremony centralized, from the 2012 Olympics. The 2010 Commonwealth Games calendar looks different though, cause it does not have icons. Does one use what looks good? Or do one decide whether the calendar should be divided into events only (sports and ceremonies left aligned), or if it should be divided into medal (left aligned) and non-medal events (centralized). I'm not sure if it should be seen as events, or medal/no medal events. Either way works for me, change it, or keep it as it is. Bib (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

They should definitely all be harmonized, and Category:Olympics calendar templates is the best place to start. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand all of this, but why are we going to change it? most calendars are formatted that way and should be kept that way. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Consensus. You seem to be the lone editor here who thinks that the unbalanced text alignment has a semantic purpose. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Then why is it that a majority of calendars have the word ceremonies centralized? Intoronto1125 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Because we just haven't got around to editing them yet...? I hadn't even noticed Category:Olympics calendar templates until a few days ago, and have since discovered the inconsistencies across these templates (different font sizes in legends and bodies, with or without pictograms, etc.) Now that we're talking about them for the first time, it's good to start work on making them consistent. This project is notorius for editors working by themselves in little niche corners (e.g. creation of dozens or hundreds of new articles), without regard for project-wide standards, but the project is also good at reaching consensus and applying consistent formatting etc. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok but why would we change it? It has been like this for mos calendars, and now after one user complaines we decided to change it? does not make sense at all. Thats my two cents. Intoronto1125 (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There are five editors in this discussion who favor consistent text alignment, not just one. And are you suggesting that we shouldn't continue to improve articles, even those that haven't changed for a period of time? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 05:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to comment since I made the most recent Winter Olympics calendar, but to be honest, I just copied it from the last one. I never gave this issue much thought, and don't have an opinion now. Lampman (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the original author of the first template in this series, and, as such, recently received a message asking for my input here. In all honesty, I do not have any pre-existing views on whether or not we center the ceremonies entry. I do, however, strongly support the move for uniformity across all templates in this category.   — C M B J   11:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, i assume left-align is the best. I cannot get where Intoronto1125 said (again): "Then why is it that a majority of calendars have the word ceremonies" centralized? It seems not from my eyes, unless something under his editing. Until now, that is a question that how Intoronto1125 get the word centralised while no center tag, magic? --Aleenf1 16:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really matter. Just move on. There is consensus here, so let's just edit articles to implement this consensus. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Finally consensus come and problem resolve. --Aleenf1 17:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

A bit late, but I also prefer them all to be left-aligned. My reasoning is that, if the word "ceremonies" were centralised, then it looks like a sub-heading, with all of the sports as items under that sub-heading. Because this isn't true, we need to keep the formatting consistent. Bluap (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Template for sports

Which template is officially use for Olympic Games, {{OlympicEvent}} or {{GamesSport}}? Since {{OlympicEvent}} use for 2008 Summer Olympics and looks pretty good, why not for 2012 or more? --Aleenf1 17:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Every Olympics (except 2000 and 2008) are formatted with {{GamesSport}}. Intoronto1125 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No legitimate. To note since we have template to use for Olympics, the another must NOT be use. Here, one template must be choose to standardise all the Olympics article. Please make a comment, thank you. --Aleenf1 17:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a mix of those two, but considering most (including Asian Games, Pan American Games, Canada Games etc.) are under {{GamesSport}} we should keep it like that. Intoronto1125 (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Volleyball

Should we split volleyball into two articles for the Olympics (beach and indoor) or leave them together? For the Pan American Games, Lusophony Games and the recent Asian Games they were split in two. Intoronto1125 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe there should only be one top-level "Volleyball at the .... Games" article. Indoor and beach are different disciplines under the same sport (which is governed by the same federation, FIVB). We do the same thing for canoeing, cycling, equestrian, for example, where disciplines are grouped together in tables etc. but a single top-level summary article exists. The end result is a single category like Category:Volleyball events at the 2008 Summer Olympics, with both disciplines. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

See also {{VolleyballAt2008SummerOlympics}} to navigate across those articles. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've given some thought to splitting List of Olympic medalists in volleyball into two lists after London, though I was considering male/female instead of by discipline. (though I was considering doing this due to the page being slow more than anything else. Could also convert all the citation templates to manual citations, which are faster...) Courcelles 00:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There's precedent for splitting those types of lists by discipline: List of Olympic medalists in freestyle wrestling and List of Olympic medalists in Greco-Roman wrestling, for example. But we still have one top level Wrestling at the Olympics article, and single per-year articles like Wrestling at the 2008 Summer Olympics. As for the references, I think it's a bit absurd to reference every single table cell with a link to the same website. Why not simply use a single reference for each entire table? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you see the 1932 medallists list at FLRC? If you had, you'd know why things get done this way nowadays. Courcelles 01:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide the link? I can't find the article you are referring to. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the Winter Games, but I see nothing in the comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 1932 Winter Olympics medal winners/archive1 that mandates a reference for every table cell. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think wrestling needs to be split up considering the same venue is used and the sport is really similar. In volleyball two different stadiums are used, two different playing surfaces and different rules. Intoronto1125 (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No need to split Volleyball, they still use the same rules (except the points), just on different surface. I like the way the article was made for last Summer Olympics, looks really good. Kante4 (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Kante4 even though differences exist, however should we do this across the board or just the Olympics? Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

New template Template:Student athlete

Feel free to help fill in Template:Student athlete by adding new articles or creating articles for redlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems awfully narrow, usable only for athletes from one country. I can't imagine it would be terribly useful for this project. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Olympic sports

I'm really confused about this category's scope. Category's description says "This category contains articles about past and present Olympic sports and links to the categories for those sports", but it also contain recognized sports. I think there should be two different categories, one for actual Olympic sports and other for recognized sports as according to IOC's definition "Olympic sports" and "recognized sport" are completely different terms, following this we can't place them together. Bill william compton^Talk 05:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your opinions and advice

A recently discussion Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Women's Sport. Your opinions and your advice are welcome. --Geneviève (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011_March_31#File:1966Cuacpue.jpg

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Fooland at the 2010 Youth Olympics

There are 200 articles in Category:Nations at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics which also have the “year in country” category eg Category:2010 in East Timor. But they should also have a classification in the Sport category for that country eg Category:Sport in East Timor which I added to that article. But most of the 199 articles do not have this third category. I don’t think they belong in the Olympic subcategory Category:East Timor at the Olympics, or do they? Hugo999 (talk) 05:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think at seperate category of Category:East Timor at the Youth Olympics is the way to go, much like we have Category:East Timor at the Paralympics as a different category. - Basement12 (T.C) 14:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Retiring from Wikipedia

I wanted to let everyone know on the project that I am retiring from Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with policy, other users, or Wikipedia itself. My personal priorities have changed in the fact that I am engaged to be married later this year along with a job-related exam in October.

For those who were involved with me during the 2010 Winter Olympics, 2008 Summer Olympics, the list of Olympic venues, and the sports of bobsleigh, canoeing, cross-country skiing, luge, Nordic combined, skeleton, and ski jumping, thank you for your assistance with this.

Citius, Altius, Fortius Chris (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. It was a pleasure for me to cooperate with you. I hope you will be back one day. Anyways, I wish you all the best in your personal life. - Darwinek (talk) 15:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sport pictograms

What is our policy regarding pictograms that are used as icons to represent individual sports? I understand that they are useful at international competitions where people with many different languages congregate. However, different games have adopted different designs. For example, the official website for the the 2010 Commonwealth Games used different pictograms than those used on 2010 Commonwealth Games#Sports. When we add pictograms to a Wikipedia article, do we have some obligation to tie them back to a reliable source?

This has arisen most recently with the file File:Netball pictogram.svg which was drawn by a Wikipedia editor but featured prominently in Netball and Netball and the Olympic Movement. Displaying a user-created pictogram suggests an Olympic status for Netball that is perhaps grander than the facts. If Netball becomes an Olympic sport in the future, how does Wikipedia know what its pictogram will be? Isn't this original research? I appreciate the time taken to draw this graphic, but what is its factual basis? Racepacket (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The "official" pictograms are covered by copyright and would have to be uploaded under fair-use, and per WP:FURG that wouldn't fly. So, a generic set that could be released under CC-BY-SA was created, and we use those- not because they're the "real ones", but that the real ones don't meet our policies. Courcelles

I thought there was that problem. But was the idea that they would be similar to the "official" ones? How can we feature them in infoboxes as if they were a company logos or had some official standing? Suppose I developed a pictogram that was silly - for example showing an athlete scratching himself - would I be allowed to put it into the infobox, or would my pictogram be original research? If the purpose of pictograms is to assist in a multi-lingual environment, what service does the pictograms offer the reader of English Wikipedia? Since Netball is not an official Olympic sport doesn't a two inch high pictogram in the Netball and the Olympic Movement mislead the reader? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour I am very Sorry Racepacket but I do not like your comparisons. I quote you...Suppose I developed a pictogram that was silly - for example showing an athlete scratching himself - would I be allowed to put it into the infobox, or would my pictogram be original research? Be it of the good humor of your part ???? I don't know. And I do not want to make of personal attacks towards you. Do you are incensed against articles of Netball ??? (see also the another discussion in Wikipedia RfC). Please you should read this page Harassment and to act correctly with fair-play in Netpall articles. Thank you so much of your understanding, I love you Racepacket (you are a good person) but I don't like your comments: Sometimes by write with the humor, we can hurt the other persons ( Can be sometimes in a involuntary behavior). I do not want to hurt you but I want to be honest with you. Je suis désolée, je vous remercie de votre compréhension, je ne doute pas de votre bonne volonté, Best regards --Geneviève (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Parutakupiu's pictograms are purely decorative, and should not be considered as representative of any "status" for a sport. We use them in navboxes such as {{Olympic Games Athletics}} and {{AthleticsAt2008SummerOlympics}}, and sometimes as icons in lists such as 2004 Summer Olympics#Sports. The idea was to assist navigation of these pages, but I think the larger versions now used in {{Infobox Olympic sport}} (such as displayed on the Athletics at the Summer Olympics page) might not be a good idea, certainly contrary to the guidance of WP:Manual of Style (icons). I'd support removing them from that context. Those pages ought to have photographs of representative Olympic competition in their infoboxes. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 16:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Because many articles about companies and institutions have official logos in the infobox, the large pictograms are misrepresenting something that was drawn by a Wikipedia contributor as an "official" logo. If they remain, the caption should say "One artist's conception of how a possible pictogram could appear" or "Not an official logo." The infobox should either be a photograph of an athletic competition or the international federation's logo used with a fair use rationale given on the image page. A related problem is that some of the photos used to decorate the articles show a posed group of people, rather than an action shot. If it is not evident from the photo that they are playing the sport, we need a reliable source to verify who they are. Anybody can post a picture on flickr labelled "Jamaican bobsled team" or "Cook Islands ski team" but without a reliable source, the flickr label could be a hoax. How can Wikipedia verify what a group of people standing together depict? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The pictograms used for sports in the Summer Paralympic Games are the Official icons from Beijing 2008, available on commons. The Winter sports however, have icons that looks like the Beijing icons, but are created by user(s). Maybe the official sports icons that were created for each specific Olympic/Paralympic year could be added to articles, which would mean alot of fair use images. Bib (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is pictograms that are not for Olympic sports and people who want to use pictograms to mislead readers into thinking that the sports are Olympic sports. Those pictograms are not part of the Official set on commons. Racepacket (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was also of the opinion that the icons were purely decorative, as nothing official could be used due to copyright. Whilst I like them in various places, for example the navboxes and in the "Nation" by "year" article headings (places where fair use on the official logos could not be reasonably claimed), I guess we really have no justifiable reason for using them at all so displaying them in places like Athletics at the Summer Olympics could give the wrong impression. Perhaps it would be best to do away with them altogether in deference to WP policy - though on a personal level i'd hate to see this happen. Also, whilst File:Athletics - Paralympic pictogram.svg etc may be the official logos of the organizing committee, are they offical as far as the IOC are concerned? And are they really free to use? - Basement12 (T.C) 01:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

External links: Olympic pictograms and Paralympic pictograms on the Official site of Beijing 2008. Bib (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Great!!! Thank u so much Bib for this reference!! Best regards, --Geneviève (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. When it comes to the pictograms and the IOC, this ESPN link says: The IOC approved the daily sports schedule for the 2010 Vancouver Winter Games, as well as the program of pre-Olympic test events, the sports pictograms and the emblem for the torch relay. At the Official Beijing 2008 site: In December 2005, BOCOG submitted the Beijing Olympic Pictograms to the 28 International Sports Federations (IFs) for approval, and all of IFs had endorsed the Pictograms by April 2006. And in June this year, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) granted the set of the Pictograms..Bib (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem. Each international competition is free to hire an artist to design a set of pictograms for that game. The artist feels a sense of professional responsibility to develop pictograms that do not look like the other sets of pictograms. So the 2008 pictograms do not look like the 2012 pictograms or the Commonwealth Games pictograms. If Wikipedia has an article about a company that includes a company logo in its infobox, the editors have an obligation to keep that logo current as it changes. Although Wikipedia editors can design pictograms to be used to decorate a few sports lists, I think it is a misrepresentation to use a large size pictogram in the article as if it were the current official logo of the sport. Either get permission or an FUR to use the current game's pictogram, or don't feature the pictogram in the article. Readers will assume that it is the official pictogram of the 2012 Games, or that the sport is an official Olympic sport. Where is the border line on original research? Wikipedia policy prohibits us from editing Sumo wrestling to say, "Sumo wrestling does not have an official pictogram, but if I were hired to design one, this is what I would draw." There are plenty of photographs that can be used in the article infoboxes without misleading the reader as to the "official status" of the pictograms. Racepacket (talk) 12:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This seems like a breech of WP:OR. We can't make stuff up Gnevin (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Could someone please do something about the large pictograms, please. The clear consensus is that they are misleading or WP:OR. Racepacket (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The images are automatically added through the infobox (Template:Infobox Olympic sport and Template:Infobox Paralympic sport). Should the images be replaced by the Olympic rings/Paralympic symbol maybe? Or fair use images? Or no image, maybe. Bib (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

My problem is more the non-Olympic sport articles trying to look like Olympic sport articles. Racepacket (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about consensus Racepacket, because I don't see the harm in using pictograms for any sport what-so-ever. Plus, from what I've read about original research, these pictograms DO NOT violate that policy. They are just that. Pictograms. Now arguments can be made about the title of a certain article, or it's content misleading a reader into believing a sport is part of the Olympics, but I don't see how the pictograms alone can mislead a reader into thinking that. I, for one, would like to see those pictograms continued to be used, whether they are part of the Commonwealth Games, Asian Games, Olympic Games, or any other multi-sport event.--Perakhantu (talk) 06:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Perakhantu, I see that you are a major contributor to Orienteering, and I find that article to have dealt with the debate over its inclusion in the Olympics to be honest and straight forward. However, there are some other sports that are producing misleading articles and using large pictograms to suggest more of an Olympic connection than is justified by the facts. When a Wikipedia editor designs his own pictogram, it is WP:OR. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the icon from the templates (Template:Infobox Olympic sport and Template:Infobox Paralympic sport) is there consensus for further removes such as Template:Olympic Games Rugby Gnevin (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have reviewedWP:MOSICON and read that guideline has prohibiting the use of large icons in sport articles when the icon is used to suggest a connection with the Olympics. How do other people read it? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

MOS compliance concerns for YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games calendars

In completing the FAC for the 1956 Winter Olympics a concern was raised that the event calendar was not compliant with the access guidelines of the MOS. The issue revolved around the calendar's reliance on color and how that would impact our color blind readers. The discussion is at the bottom of this page. Has there been any consideration given to this issue in the past? Is anyone aware of remedies that would be easy to implement? Other articles like the '56 Winter Games will be moving to FA consideration and it would be good to have this concern addressed. Thank you for any thoughts you may have. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I presume we need a symbol to indicate preliminary competition before the finals, to be used in the blue table cells. I also have some other issues with those calendars:

• I think wikilinking the bullets to the event pages is an "Easter egg" that should be avoided. I'd rather see a numeral indicating the number of event finals for that sport/day. Look at {{2008 Summer Olympics calendar}}, where you need to be careful with a mouse to find a particular event out of all the bullets. (And obviously, that wouldn't work at all for the printed version.)

  I see what you're saying. I've been mired in the Winter Games of the 40's and 50's and that just isn't a problem for those articles. If there was a number representing the event finals for that day how would people access the specific event? Could the number lead to a list of event finals for that day or does that get too complex or lead to forking?

  There are already a pair of links to each of the "Sport at the 1956 Winter Olympics" pages, once via the {{main}} hatnote in each subsection of the "Events" section, and once in the leftmost table column of the calendar. Is that not sufficient, to go through the top-level page for each sport in order to get to individual events? I'm not sure we need to link every event directly from the main page for each Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Gold medals" isn't the best way to indicate event final totals, as it occasionally happens that multiple gold medals are awarded for first place ties. Better to just call it "Events", as was done with {{2010 Winter Olympics Calendar}} and some others.

  Agreed, "Events" seems to be a better describer of what is trying to be conveyed. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 20:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the table actually relies on colour, but uses colour to enhance the table. The preliminary events are clearly different from medal awarding events in that the prelim boxes don't have a bullet in them, while the medal awarding events do. Additionally, though the ceremonies also have bullets, because they are listed on the ceremonies line, and that opening is first, closing is second, is explained in the article and is intuitive, they are sufficiently separate. A symbol could be used (OC and CC) or the like for the ceremonies if the bullets may pose a problem.

As for the wikilinking of bullets to specific events, I think a (non-wikilinked) number indicating medal awarding events for that day is the best solution. I don't like the idea of a separate page listing event finals by day; that information is already included, or at least should be, on the sport specific pages, which as mentioned above, are easily accessible on the left hand side of the column. Ravendrop 20:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your logic makes sense, the less we have to do the better. Change the dots to a non-linked number and rely on the links already in the article. Probably have to add a bit to the explanation. The numbers would also differentiate the event finals from the ceremonies (if we maintain dots for the ceremonies). This should alleviate MOS concerns. Sounds good to me. H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 21:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

We do need something in the table cells for preliminary events, because without colour the blue cells are indistinguishable from the blank ones. Perhaps use the bullet dot for that purpose? So we'd have something like:

OC

Opening ceremony

●

Event competitions

1

Event finals

CC

Closing ceremony

— Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That could work too, but my above post was under the assumption that someone who is colour blind could at least differentiate from the blank background and the shaded of the prelim as the blue is a fairly dark colour. Also I think the number should be bolded to stand out from the background better and to better "compete" with the bullets for attention Ravendrop 22:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:COLOUR, we need to also consider hearing-impaired readers. A screen reader will not say anything different for colour coding, so we need some symbol or alphanumeric character in table cells that have meaning. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point, hadn't considered that. In that case, I like the bullets for indicating prelim events and numbers for the number of medal events. Could be confusing at first, but overall is probably a change for the better if we standardize a template that is in compliance with all readability issues for future FA nominations, etc. Ravendrop 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I made the proposed changes to the 1952 Winter Olympics calendar. There weren't a lot of event finals back then so there are a lot of "1's" but that's the way it goes. I also bolded the OC and CC, which of course can be changed. I think it looks fine, your thoughts? H1nkles (talk) _{citius altius fortius} 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Olympic recognised sports

There are a number of sports that are Olympic recognised sports but not competed for in the Olympics. This isn't my area of expertise. It would be really great if we could have some assistance in terms of how to organise articles related to that, consistent spelling and punctuation for the term. I've created Category:Olympic recognised sports as a short term solution for the Netball at the Olympics article. (That was created because our Olympic section was getting rather long. While the information is important, it best fits on its own article instead of on the main one.) --LauraHale (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort you have put into Netball at the Olympics, I must comment on the name of the article. The "Sport at the Olympics" series is used for discussion about the Olympic history of each sport, medal winners, list of events on the current and past Olympic program, etc. I do not think this title style is appropriate for a sport that has never been in the Olympic program (not even as a demonstration sport), and will not be on the program in the foreseeable future. Can you please consider another name for this article? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, for me, the title Netball at the Olympics is very good: simple and Clearly on the question treaty. Bonne chance --Geneviève (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It may be "simple", but it certainly isn't logical. The article title is "Netball at the Olympics" and the first line of the lede states It has never been played at the summer Olympics. That's rather confusing, don't you think? I would prefer something like Olympic recognition of netball. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It needs a name change, misleading. Kante4 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour Andrwsc, sorry for the word simple (I thought in French language - French is my first language. English and Hebrew are the other languages about which I speak secondarily); I shall have written rather Effective in English language. I prefer the title Netball at the Olympics. Best regards ,Merci de votre compréhension, --Geneviève (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm okay with the article needing a name change. I just did not know what to name it as the sport is Olympic recognised but there was no style guide for how to handle Olympic recognised sports, nor how to categorise them. Obviously the sport hasn't been played at the Olympics and prior to this, there appeared to be no need to address how to handle sports recognised but not competed for. I was hoping that the style guide would have information on that topic or some option could be offered for how to deal with those sports in the future. I thought about Netball as an Olympic sport but there appears to be contention around the identification of netball as an Olympic sport. --LauraHale (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a major conceptual problem here. The International Olympic Committee recognizes International Federations and not particular sports. (Some International Federations govern multiple sports, and the IOC evaluates the quality of the International Federation rather than any particular aspect of the underlying sports. For example, the IOC could not care about the fitness level required to play, but cares about the quality of the Anti-Doping program. So when the IOC "recognized" the IFNA, it was not recognizing netball as a sport or making a commentary one way or the other about whether netball was a "worthy" sport. The phrase "Olympic-recognized" may be an attempt to add glamor to 32 sports such as Sumo Wrestling, Korfball, Mountaineering, Powerboating, and Wushu. So, the phrase "Olympic-recognized sport" makes no sense. So, perhaps the article should be merged into the "International Federation of Netball Associations" and the discussion of the IOC's recognition of the IFNA incorporated there. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Please see Talk:International Federation of Netball Associations#Merger_Proposal

Racepacket once again, you've been canvassing to bully poor Laura into changing something that you want desist cause I'm fed up with Wikipedia at the moment just for the shear amount of stupidness from a hell of a lot of people and not just you. The fact of the matter is she brought it here and you didn't need to canvass, mean Kante4 is one of the most difficult members to get on with as he does not talk nor ever justify himself and his response is what i expected! Just please racepacket stop trying to antagonise a situation it will only end badly...I get why it's named netball at the and I'm cool with it, Olympic rec of netball seems a bit clunky to me. Netball and the Olympics, would be less clunky and have the same meaning. Put it this way I'm out of ideas now, you've got three ways of saying it. KnowIG (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the above remarks and I want everyone to understand that I certainly am not trying to antagonize anyone or mean anyone disrespect. I know we all want to get our content right both in terms of accuracy and in terms of understandability for our readers. Racepacket (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Assuming hypothetically that there are "recognized sports" (which I now doubt), would the correct phrase be "IOC recognized sport" just as the phrase is "IOC recognized international federation", not "Olympic recognized international federation." I read the Olympic charter as recognizing federations, not sports. But if for some reason I was wrong, why would the phrase be "Olympic recognized sport?" Racepacket (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with this comment; it is the IOC that recognizes NOCs, IFs, etc. "Olympic recognition" is perhaps sloppy phrasing. So back to the article name; would anybody object if I moved it to IOC recognition of netball? I strongly object to Netball at the Olympics. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I would object to that name. How about Netball and the Olympics? The article goes beyond the scope of recognition and goes into inclusion, funding issues, etc. IOC recognition of netball suggests a narrower scope than the article has. For me, it suggest that the article focused on the process of attaining recognition. --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Netball and the Olympic Movement? To me, "...and the Olympics" still carries the connotation of the actual Games. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the idea of merging the article with International Federation of Netball Associations, which Racepacket has proposed. I feel it sets a bad precedent. If Racepacket's proposal was accepted, it would suggest Olympic coverage should be done under the name of the federation. Rather than "Soccer at the Olympics" the title would be "FIFA at the Olympics". --LauraHale (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we please develop a consensus on how to treat the 32 sports that are not Olympic sports? I believe the phrase "Olympic recognised sport" is not consistent with 36 U.S.C. § 220506 nor with IOC policy. I also do not understand why we need two separate categories: the recently created Category:Olympic recognised sports and the long-standing Category:IOC-recognised international federations? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour It is very sad this debate. Be that Wikipedia always has to follow what says CIO on the non-recognized sports? After the Netball, it will be probably the women ski jumping  ? I question requires to align the arguments on those of the Olympic committee. I support Laura . Thanks and Best regards --Geneviève (talk) 09:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve, this has nothing to do with any particular editor. This is a question of what is the appropriate nomenclature to describe sports, disciplines and events. This WikiProject is trying to be accurate. If an individual makes an accurate statement, that is fine, if the statement is inaccurate, then it is changed to be accurate. Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if anybody has made this point before but it's an interesting fact that although the IOC recognizes the world governing bodies of motor-cycling and powerboating the sports the federations govern can never be contested at the Olympics because they are in direct violation (no motor sports) of the Olympic Charter. Topcardi (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. The recognition of an international federation focuses on the attributes of the federation, not the "merits" of the sport - the level of fitness required or its popularity. I don't see how Category:Olympic recognised sports is consistent with the IOC structure or nomenclature. Racepacket (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I have re-read the olympics.org website and they seem to break up their list of sports into two categories "official sports" and "recognised sports." We have U.S. laws governing the use of the word "Olympic." Would it be safer to for this WikiProject to adopt "IOC-recognised sports" as its naming convention? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Re Motorsports they have been part of the Olympics in the early days (like Tug-of-War) see for 1908 Category:Water motorsports at the Olympics Hugo999 (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Rule 52.4.2 of the Olympic Charter states that in relation to the Olympic Programme “Sports, disciplines or events in which performance depends essentially on mechanical propulsion are not accepted”. Following discussions on this subject in relation to the requests for certain sports to be admitted to the Olympic Programme, the Commission believed that a decision should be made by the IOC on the interpretation of Rule 52.4.2"[14].Topcardi (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)