Entertainment desk
< August 3	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 4[edit]

plush toys for the medalists[edit]

I know plush toys were being handed out to the medalists during PyeongChang 2018. Are the same thing being handed out during Tokyo 2020?

Nope, just flowers. See earlier question about this. Xuxl (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But with the flowers, what's being handed out to the medalists is what I'm trying to figure out.2603:7000:8101:58A0:E510:62A7:1D95:84B9 (talk) 02:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In all the ceremonies I've watched, it's only been flowers. No other trinkets (besides the medals themselves, of course). Xuxl (talk) 12:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xuxl:: From Maialen Chourraut y el proceso para estar tranquila lejos de su hija Ane:

Justo al acabar su actuación en el canal de Kasai, besos al aire para ella, y al bajar del podio, con un peluche de la mascota de estos Juegos, Miraitowa, un gato futurista, lanzó un mensaje a las cámaras: "Ane, zuretzako", es decir, "Ane, para ti".

Just after finishing her competition in the Kasai canal, air kisses for her, and stepping of the podium, with a plush toy of the mascot of these games Miraitowa, a futuristic cat, she (Maialen Chourraut) sent a message to the cameras: Ane, zuretzako, i.e. "Ane (Chourraut's daughter), for you".

So it seems that this silver medalist had a plush toy in the podium (which she gave to her daughter back home).

The Miraitowa article says nothing about handouts.

--Error (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear from that article where the plush toy came from. It could have been a gift from a coach, a fellow competitor or someone else. Not a standard hand-out at the medal ceremony in any case. Xuxl (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why there is no bronze medal match for boxing in Tokyo Olympics 2020?[edit]

Lovlina won bronze medal match just by losing semi finals but whereas PV sindhu won bronze medal after winning bronze medal match after losing semi final match. Rizosome (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this article. Nanonic (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested, this article [1] mentions which sports award two bronze medals. Note that awarding two bronze medals doesn't always mean they're automatically awarded to both losing semifinalists. Some sports like taekwondo, wrestling and judo and use repechage system where the losing semi-finalists compete against others who lost to the finalists for the bronze medals in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Boxing at the 2020 Summer Olympics, and explained above, each semifinal loser gets a bronze. The nature of boxing is such that making them try to beat each other up, just for a lousy bronze medal, is unfair to the participants. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: Athletics at the 1912 Summer Olympics – Men's pole vault had one gold, two silver for tied second place, and three bronze for tied fourth place. Don't ask me why. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sports records: what does Olympic Standard and World Standard mean?[edit]

When you see articles, for example, like this (List of Olympic records in weightlifting) and this (List of world records in Olympic weightlifting) ... what does it mean when there is a "blank" entry ... and they only list a generic comment such as Olympic Standard or World Standard? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See this. Basically, they nullified old records and then used a formula to figure out what they should be and called them 'Olympic Standard' and 'World Standard'. Nanonic (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Weightlifting at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 64 kg, for instance, the winner did not reach the Olympic Standard, which presumably means that her results do not count as olympic records. Note that the weight limit previously was at 63 kg and this was the first competition with the new limit. --Wrongfilter (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, geez ... that all seems quite complicated. And counter-intuitive. In the weight-lifting example ... why don't they just record the highest weight that someone has lifted (let's just say, 500 pounds) ... and then update the record when another person beats that record (e.g., the next athlete lifts 600 pounds, or whatever). Why so confusing? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the highest weight someone of 64kg or under has lifted when you did not have a category for someone of 64kg or under before?Are you going to force them to compete for the record of someone 69kg or under, a record which may be very difficult to beat? Whatever the fairness of the system used, it seems better than that. If you want an alternative, it would seem fairer to just not have any records and so count every highest weight lifted of the different section in the new categories as a new record. Note even if you have precise weights for every necessary competitor at previous events and so could theoretically come up with a list of record holders you're likely to end up with a bunch of questionable records since athletes tend to target the weight limits. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I am confused. I'd say ... leave the record entry "blank" until someone "starts" the record process (i.e., the first contest is held). Then, keep updating as that record is surpassed. I thought some of these "old systems" went back to 2018? No one has lifted weights since that time (in these specific competitive categories)? Also, I am unclear on what the words themselves mean (Olympic Standard; World Standard?) ... or are supposed to mean? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I said, that was an option, and although I know this is OT, it seems far fairer than what you suggested in your earlier comment of requiring people to beat a record in a higher weight class. There have been other competitions as evidenced by the fact a number of those records were not set in Olympics. I assume but I'm not going to check, all of those weight categories have had at least one valid competition. However, if no one beat the world standard, there would be no world record. That seems to be the whole point of the world standard and Olympics standard, to set a minimum level since there is no record as these are new categories. So instead of recognising every higher weight as a record, setting a standard treated as the level to beat. While I didn't read the sources very well, it seems likely that the name standard was chosen as these are standards calculated as the weight to beat taking into account records in old categories, rather than actual records albeit functioning the same as records except without a holder. (Well possibly if someone equals the standard they'll be considered the sole record holder but I'm not sure.) Whether the system of requiring the standards to be beat before a record was recognised isn't really a question for the RD. Also the last Olympics was in 2016 with the old categories. It was impossible for there to be an Olympics record until one is set in these games. If no one lifted a weight greater than the Olympics standard, there is still no Olympics record. It doesn't matter if someone beat the world/Olympics standard in some other competition, it would not be a Olympics record, and the Olympics standard would still need to be beaten in an Olympics (2024 or later) for an Olympics record to be set. The same as an Olympics record has to be beaten in an Olympics for a new Olympics record to be set, no matter how well people do in other competitions. Nil Einne (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's worth noting that many of the standards have already been matched?/beaten despite the short time these categories have existed. Unless for some reason they're changed very soon which admittedly did happen in 1998, it seems likely within 12 years, the standards would be mostly forgotten about as the only things that people would care about would be the world and Olympics records, all of the standards having been surpassed. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So they are just trying to set some minimum "floor", as to what could / should be considered a record. They just don't want "any old number / performance" to lay claim to the title of "record". So, they used some complicated mathematical model to calculate what a new record "should look like". Before they are willing to call it a "record". Is that the gist of it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you stated this seems far fairer than what you suggested in your earlier comment of requiring people to beat a record in a higher weight class. I never suggested that above. Implicit in my question / comment above was that people would be competing only among their own weight class / divisions. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there's other rule(s) preventing this or if they'd DQ you out of the record books for finding this ingenious loophole, but it seems that if some Jedi mind trick caused "record minimums" and this "trick" to never be thought of till the first weight of the new era was being chosen (everyone chooses their starting weight, lowest goes first), then anyone could guarantee a world record by simply being in the very first contest or Olympics and choosing a bar with no weights (44 pounds). By comparison I could lift a 40 pound sack to my chest when I was 10 and I had the muscles of a starving little girl. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After changing limits, they could have just said that the initial under-x record is the under-y record for a lower y. For example, after changing 48 kg to 49 kg, the 49 kg record would be the old 48 kg record until somebody beats it in the new 49 kg class. They didn't do that and then they made standards where the 49 kg standard is below the 48 kg record. Compare List of Olympic records in weightlifting#Women and List of Olympic records in weightlifting#Women (1998–2018). The official Olympic record (beating the standard) for women under 49 kg is now below the record for women under 48 kg in all three events. That seems silly. The lowest weight limit increased so there wouldn't be a missing record in the new lowest class if all old records were just transferred to higher weight limits. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They likely have their reason(s), I wonder what it is. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved