Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20

Serbia and Montenegro vs Yugoslavia

So basically Yugoslavia at the Olympics contains everything (like medals) from 1920–1992. And Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics everything from 1996–2006. But the articles we have here Yugoslavia at the 1996 Summer Olympics, Yugoslavia at the 1998 Winter Olympics, Yugoslavia at the 2000 Summer Olympics and Yugoslavia at the 2002 Winter Olympics. And then again Basketball_at_the_Summer_Olympics notes as Serbia competing at 1996. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that the Breakup of Yugoslavia happened in '92ish and FR Yugoslavia is now called Serb&Mont, I'd say that the existing split is awkward but (for the most part) accurate. Primefac (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


That is the event, the break-up of Yugoslavia occurred in 1992, but part that encompassed Serbia continued to be called Yugoslavia. From all of Yugoslavia up until 2002, only Serbia and Montenegro remained, which in 2003 founded the State of Serbia and Montenegro. On May 21, 2006, a plebiscite in which 55.5% of Montenegrins expressed the desire for separation. On June 3, 2006, Montenegro declared itself independent, and thus Yugoslavia was formally extinguished. Two days after Montenegro's independence, Serbia also declared. End of the name Yugoslavia only in 2003 (User talk:74Account) 17:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The name Serbia&Montenegro was not used back in 1994. Moreover, it appears that Yugoslav athletes actually continued to compete under the old SFR Yugloslavia flag and with the old country code (YUG) on the olympics held from 1994 until 2004 as evidenced e.g. (here, here and here. Therefore wikipedia's counting of the medals from that period for Serbia and Montenegro is wrong as the IOC did not award them like that. This shows very clearly that the IOC has awarded the olympic medals achieved by all the Yugoslav competitors (up until 2004) to one and the same entity.Tvx1 19:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Some discussion years back: Talk:Yugoslavia_at_the_Olympics. "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" are a bit different (by the members of it). But if the title says "Yugoslavia at the Olympics" (with the same YUG code) then we should include those 4 Olympic Games there (I mean let's try to think from the sporting point of view rather than politics). Tvx1, your edits were only half the solution because many articles should be rewritten or content moved. I'm gonna suggest a merge to see what other people think, maybe I'm wrong. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, more accurately my edits were just the start of the solution. A lot of articles need to be tweaked. I don't think the merger is a good thing though. We always have separate articles dealing with the appearances of the different national delegations at the individual olympics (e.g. Belgium at the 2008 Summer Olympics, Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics). I also disagree with merging Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics with anything. Serbia and Montenegro (IOC-code SCG) did compete separately at the 2004 Summer Olympics and 2006 Winter Olympics.Tvx1 21:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

By merging I meant to include content of those 4 games (appearances, medals etc), not the whole articles to made one gigantic article. I couldnt find a better template to use. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Until 1992 existed SFR Yugoslavia with 6 republic, since 1992 exist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (2 republics, Serbia and Montenegro)...............things until 1992 and after 1992 should not be merged. Even IOC consider 1996 and 2000 as Serbia and Montenegero. And what should be merged is Indepedent Olympic participants at 1992 with FR YUG and SCG --Backij (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Also flags listed for Yugoslavia at 1996 and 2000 Olympics are wrong!!!

The COI considers until 2000 as Yugoslavia, respecting the decision of the heads of government of the time, proof in these photos: [[1]] e [[2]] (User talk:74Account) 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I undid these edits because these articles, tables, and records are structured according to IOC's NOCs. Please adhere to these standards. Jmj713 (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

And according to the IOC the 1996-2002 medals were awarded to Yugoslavia. Your reverts make no sense and you’re the one not adhering to the IOC’s standards.Tvx1 04:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
See our All-time Olympic Games medal table which is very precise and well researched. The Timeline of participation at Yugoslavia at the Olympics also reflects this. Thus these articles also have to conform. Jmj713 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
These were already updated. You can always help to fix others. The IOC is very clear as to who they credit the appearances and medals with. Your continuous reverting of correcting information are not helping anyone in any way. It's just being pedantic over exactly following Wikipedia process and is only wasting people's time. You should be focusing on showing accurate information instead.Tvx1 19:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, article of sports at the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics, should be overchecked. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If you want like that you need to correct flags as 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 articles, no star.....you can see in the photo on jersey which you attached.--Backij (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If they are so different, then why do both have titles "Yugoslavia at the ... Olympics"? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You don’t seem to realize that while it may have been called the same name at the time, it’s not the same entity. That’s like combining USSR and the Unified Team. Also, often the reverse has happened, where a name changed but the entity remained the same, which is why the IOC considers Rhodesia totals as part of Zimbabwe’s. Jmj713 (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

With this logic Olympic Athletes of Russia's statistics should go under Russia, just because they represent Russian athletes? Maybe it's better to seperate Yugoslavia's Olympic articles to SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia or atleast those conserning 4 games (1996–2002)? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they were different political entities. They were not however different olympic entities. The olympic delegation did not change, it just represented a different political entities. The Yugoslavia at the olympics article gives the complete story of the three different political entities the Yugoslavia olympic delegation represented at different staged of history. The Olympic delegation is considered one continuous one however and that's the only thing were care about. The IOC awarded all olympic results to one and the same entity (Yugoslavia (YUG)) until 2002.Tvx1 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Yugoslavia or Serbia - FIBA Basketball World Cup and Eurobasket Yugoslavia [[ https://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/p/rpp//tid/390/_//teams.html ]] Serbia [[ https://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/p/rpp//tid/96799/_//teams.html ]] Serbia Nationalista User Bozalegenda promotes war pro editions Serbia. User talk:74Account) 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, the post-breakup YUG was a different political entity and that's what we are concerned with. It was no longer the same Yugoslavia. It is then related and part of SCG. Olympic history is full of changes in political entities, and this is one of them. But it is incorrect to combine pre- and post-breakup YUG which was Serbian and Montenegro by another name. We also do not combine USSR and Unified Team participation or Germany and the unified German team as those are all separate political entities, which are what take part in the Olympics. Jmj713 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
No, we couldn't care less about the political entities. Only the sportive exploits matter here. And the IOC awarded all those sportive exploits to the only Yugoslavia (YUG) they ever recognized. We didn't combine the other countries' results you mentioned simply because the IOC doesn't either. Thus I can't see why we should make an exception for Yugoslavia (YUG) and start inventing fictitious olympic delegations. The article on Yugoslavia's Olympic exploits explains very clearly that Yugslovavia (YUG) represented different political entities throughout its history, yet for the IOC and thus medal purposes the Olympic country was one and the same.Tvx1 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" was more closely related to Serbia and Montenegro than the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia." It's a shame both nations were called Yugoslavia, but it seems illogical to combined the two Yugoslavias unless you completely merge Serbia and Montenegro as well and note the name change.JoshMartini007 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In this case, it doen't matter that they were more related to Serbia&Montenegro. "Olympic Athletes from Russia" is also seperated from Russia, even though there's no doubt which country are they related (coming from). We are not giving Soviet medals to Russia just because they were the successor state of Soviet Union. We are not giving any Soviet medals to any other later independent country, whatever their actual nationality. We should not make an exeption and seperate Yugoslavia before they finished competing under Yugoslavia. All-time Olympic Games medal table has every version of Germany seperated, they also seperate all the Indepenent Participants from their actual country. So lets keep a certal line here – matters the name they compete under. It's possible to seperate them in Yugoslavia at the Olympics article and make a note of it in the other articles. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 17:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
FR Yugoslavia is Serbia and Montenegro just like Rhodesia is Zimbabwe so to separate them makes no sense. The two Yugoslavias are different. It would be like keeping Russia and the Soviet Union's medals together. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10: Mate i dont know are you making jokes here with us or what? Once again Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1943–1992) and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia / Serbia and Montenegro (1992–2006) are not the same country. They have different names, different flags, different passports, everything was different. FR Yugoslavia played against other republics from SFR Yugoslavia (Croatia, Slovenia and others). So what the hell Croats have with FR Yugoslavia gold medal in Eurobasket 1997 when they played against each other on that tournament. Is this so hard to understand.--Bozalegenda (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but both versions of Yugoslavia participated under the same name. FR Yugoslavia was only Serbia+Montenegro, but in Olympics they did compete under "Yugoslavia", not Serbia&Montenegro – that's why Yugoslavia at the 2000 Summer Olympics is not called "Serbia&Montenegro at the 2000 Summer Olympics. Yugoslavia doesn't mean SFR Yugoslavia. Yugoslavia can either stand for SFR or FR. So the arguement with Croatia, has no meaning. With the sources provided there's no reason to make Yugoslavia into Serbia&Montenegro or just Serbia. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Technically at the Olympics the nation is referred to by its full name, at Wikipedia we shorten it (for various reasons). It's why we have Russia instead of Russian Federation, Macedonia instead of FYR Macedonia and South Korea instead of Republic of Korea. We can argue whether SFR and FR Yugoslavia are the same, but S&M needs to go with FR Yugoslavia. JoshMartini007 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@JoshMartini007: That's write mate, thank you for supporting me.--Bozalegenda (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yet, at the Olympics neither "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" or "Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" were ever used. Look up the footage and results tables from the many olympics and you will see that both only competed as Yugoslavia (YUG). If you look here in 1988 (at 1:44:31) it's Yugoslavia and in 1996 (at 2:50:59) it's still just Yugoslavia. So despite you agreeing with one another, you're both wrong. No one is claiming here that SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia were the same political country. The only thing is that the IOC only ever recognized one olympic country, which is the only truth because that is what happened in reality. The FR Yugoslavia never registered themselves as such with the IOC.Tvx1 22:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
The olympic delegation however was one and the same until 2002. I just represented three different political states at different points in olympic history. Yet the the delegation recognized by the IOC was one and the same until 2002: Yugoslavia(YUG). A [Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) delegation only appeared in 2004 and 2006. No FR Yugoslavia (FRY) delegation ever appeared at the olympics. And we have to list medals in the articles of the Olympic delegations these medals were actually awarded to. There have been many Olympic delegations on many olympics which did not match a political entity. Our articles intend to show the performances of the different olympic delegations, not of the political entities.Tvx1 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
When this and this get merged then you could give all medals to your imaginary Yugoslavia (which never existed). And that merge will never happen, and do you know why? Because they are two totally different countries with only similar name. I know that cause I lived in that country, and I know that we have to change our passports, documents, flag and everything. So once again SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia are not the same thing.--Bozalegenda (talk) 19:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yet the Olympic country Yugoslavia (YUG) did exist and it kept existing until 2002 despite you changing your passports. The IOC kept awarding results to the same olympic delegation. Go and watch any footage from Olympic appearances between 1996 and 2002 and you'll clearly see they competed as Yugoslavia (YUG). We couldn't care less about the actual sovereign states during that period. Only the sportive results are important here.Tvx1 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The country that was competing in 90s and early 2000s was FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). That country has nothing with an old SFR Yugoslavia (six republics- Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, Monenegro, Slovenia). In FR Yugoslavia we had a new flag, new passports, everything was new. In 2003 FR Yugoslavia just changed their name to Serbia and Montenegro. When FR Yugoslavia won the Eurobasket 1997 they played against Croatia, and now someone wants to add that gold medal to Croats and other countries from SFRY?? All countries from ex SFR Yugoslavia have their own national teams from 1992 and they have nothing with medals from FR Yugoslavia.--Bozalegenda (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the country that was competing in 90s and early 2000s was Yugoslavia(YUG). The political entity it represented was FR Yugoslavia. The IOC registered country was the same as the pre-1992 one however and the medals were thus awarded to the same olympic country.Tvx1 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: No that's not correct. Thats a mistake on that site. It looks like you are learning me what passport and flag did my country used from early 90s till 2006.--Bozalegenda (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that is Bozalegenda as we know him. If a source doesn't fit him, then there is "a mistake on that site".--2003:C8:7F21:595B:45B9:BDEC:5E10:AEB8 (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
And what is more credible do you think? The IOC or some random wikipedian's thoughts. Fact is all those medals were awarded to the same Olympic entity of Yugoslavia (YUG). What you're talking about with your passport are political entities. Olympic delegations do not necessarily match political entities. For instance, Puerto Rico sends their own Olympic delegations to the Olympics despite being part of the United States. Literally, people holding a US passport collect medals for Puerto Rico.Tvx1 22:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

this version is official FIBA ARCHIVE [[3]] so it was well locked to prevent some Serbs from disrespecting the other Slav peoples Because what has come from Yugoslavia will never be only from Serbia User:74Account

Also before anyone argues about the country code being the same this has happened many times See here. Some examples; DR Congo had COK (now Cook Islands), Guyana had GUA and GUI (now Guatemala and Guinea), Mongolia had MON (now Monaco) Niger had NGR (now Nigeria)and Nigeria had NIG (now Niger). Just because FR Yugoslavia used YUG doesn't mean they are the same country. JoshMartini007 (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

As far is the IOC were concerned, they were one and the same Olympic country. The medals were awarded to one and the same Yugoslavia(YUG). This not simply about the usage of "the same country code".Tvx1 18:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

In the last article is written country Yugoslavia and Olympic committee of Serbia and Montenegro :P

Look at the medal records there. All medals rewarded to Yugoslavia (YUG) delegations are listed there.Tvx1 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay so politically SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia were different however, as far as I can tell the IOC (and other sport federations) considered them the same and only recognize the difference when the name was changed to Serbia and Montenegro. Talk about dropping the ball on a sensitive issue. The pages have been locked until we figure this out. Our options...

1. Leave everything the way it was (FR Yugoslavia's results stay with Serbia and Montenegro)

2. Move FR Yugoslavia's results to Yugoslavia at the Olympics

3. Merge the two pages together

4. Create a separate page for FR Yugoslavia's results only

Thoughts? JoshMartini007 (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we should go for option 2. We respect the IOC's official results for every other national delegations which ever competed at the Olympics, so I simply cannot see why we should make an exception for YUG and SCG. We can use the prose of the articles on those Olympic delegations to explain which political entities they represented at various stages of their history. I find it kind quite strange that there's so much opposition to reflecting the truth about how medals were awarded achieved by athletes from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, yet no one complains about our equally still correct way of reflecting the truth about how medals were awarded achieved by athletes from the Kingdom of Yugoslavia which was an equally different political entity.Tvx1 23:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Man are you serious with this??? Do you realize that we have two different countries (FR Yugoslavia and SFR Yugoslavia). Do you realize that FR Yugoslavia played against Croatia, Slovenia and other countries from ex SFRY and now you want to add medals from FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to Croats and others? Thats nonsense. Do you know that actually all medals belongs to Serbia (this is words of Croatian Olympic Committee). Do you know that Serbia actually won the 100th medal at the Olympics 2012 in London.--Bozalegenda (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
No we do not want to "add medals from FR Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to Croats and others". In fact we do not care even a tiny bit about politics and ethnicities. We care about which sports countries these medals were actually awarded to by the governing body actually in charge of awarding those medals. For the exact same reason we do not claim that the United Kingdom won a World Cup of football. And also remember that we list all of the Great Britain with one Olympic delegation, despite that too having represented different political entities. Until the 1920's Ireland was part of the United Kingdom and some Irish people even collected medals for Great Britain. Your Serbian nationalistic site my claim what they want, that's not how the IOC awarded those medals back in those days. In fact even those athletes passport said Yugoslavian back in those days. Moreover some of the medals your site claim as "Serbian" were actually achieved by teams which contained non-Serbian players as well.Tvx1 02:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Man are you joking with me or what??? This is words of Croatian Olympic Committee where they clearly say that all medals belong only to Serbia as a direct successor of that team. And you are saying that this is Serbian nationalistic site???? --Bozalegenda (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't care about who claims to hold this medals right now. We only care about whom the medals were rewarded to back then. They can't possibly have been awarded to Serbia, because Serbia simply did not exist back then. It's very clear for every one who the IOC currently still credits these medals to. So stop pushing your stupid Serbian propaganda and start accepting the truth.Tvx1 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Bozalegenda Serbian ultra-nationalist in his recent contributions is reversing all world and Olympic constellations from Yugoslavia to Serbia, it is more confirmed that he defends the ideal of Greater Serbia in disregard of other Slav peoples. User:74Account —Preceding undated comment added 00:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha man you are one funny guy. Are you realize that you are making a fool of yourself with that comments.--Bozalegenda (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
I also support option 2, because if we go seperate ways with IOC, then we're walking on a dangerous path. Who knows what other nations want their medals from other entries (looking at Serbia men's national basketball team makes you wonder...). We keep track of the entries, not the political entities. That's why there are seperated entries without political entities (EUN, IOA, IOP and soon OAR). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously the only available option is Option 1, because we keep participation totals together in cases where the political entity was renamed. After the breakup SCG may have continued using the name Yugoslavia and the YUG code but it was no longer the same entity, political or not. Then that entity changed its name, but we do not separate participation based on name change, so Rhodesia = Zimbabwe, and post-breakup Yugoslavia = Serbia and Montenegro. There is no logical sense in combining pre- and post-breakup YUG/SCG totals. It only makes sense if you're trying to push some nationalist idea, maybe. Jmj713 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
No we do not "keep participation totals together in cases where the political entity was renamed". I do understand where you get that ridiculous idea. We simply cannot care less about what happens politically. The only thing we care about is what the IOC recognized in a sportive sense. Again see my Great Britain example. The political entity changed in the 1920's, yet we keep all their results with Great Britain because that's how the IOC credits them. As far as the IOC is concerned the YUG delegations that competed at their olympics until winter 1992 and the YUG that competed between 1996 and 2002 was one the same (and was the same as the YUG that represented the Kingdom of Yugoslavia much earlier) and they awarded them to the same YUG delegations. And that's the only thing which matters. The only thing preventing us from providing this information accurately is some misguided patriotism from nationalistic Serbians. YUG is literally the only country for which there is request not follow the IOC listings. I don't see why we should start making exceptions.Tvx1 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Please change flags for Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 Olympics. It is so wrong and offensive!

The only available and valid option is Option 1. When this two articles (SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia) get merged then we could give all medals to one Yugoslavia, until that happens it remains this way. This two were totally DIFFERENT COUNTRIES with DIFFERENT FLAGS, DIFFERENT NAMES, everything was different. Number of inhabitants, number of republics. All republics from SFR Yugoslavia have their own national teams from 1992 so they dont have anything wih medals from FR Yugoslavia. Their national teams played against FR Yugoslavia so they dont have right to these medals.--Bozalegenda (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
The "merged" article does exist: Yugoslavia. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes and that Yugoslavia is only till 1992. When FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro (1992-2006) get merged with that then we could add all medals to one Yugoslavia. And that will never happen cause these two are totally different countries.--Bozalegenda (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
No, because our articles on Olympics have never cared about political status at all. We only care about what the IOC recognized and they only recognized one YUG delegation for three different countries throughout history. After all, there was a Kingdom of Yugoslavia as well and these achievements aren't split off either. Whether you like it or not, the FR Yugoslavia never registered themselves as a separate Olympic nation (FRY). It only happened when the country itself was renamed Serbia and Montenegro (SCG).Tvx1 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The IOC does not recognize countries and political entries. IOC recognize National Olympic Committees. So discussion about whether SFRY, FRY and S&M were a single political entity or different, is irrelevant, this question does not matter. The question is that: whether NOC of SFRY, NOC of FRY and NOC of S&M (option 1) were a single organization recognized by IOC? or (option 2) IOC granted recognition in 1996 to new organization (NOC of FRY) and in 2004 to another new organization (NOC of S&M)? or (option 3) it was a single organization but IOC each time granted new recognition to it as a different organization? In the case of the last two options, we must have different entries in Wikipedia. At the site of Olympic Committee of Serbia stated that IOC of Kingdom of Serbia (1912) and IOC of Yugoslavia (1920) where different organization. But nothing is said about situation at 1996 and 2004. And I can't to find any sources clearing this question. Without answer to this question we can not resolve our discussion. We can ask serbian wikipedians participating in our discussion to take a more thorough search of Serbian sources. Or we can to formulate here a question about facts of recognitions in 1996 and 2004 to studies.centre@olympic.org. They respond. Nitobus (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear-cut to me. The IOC considers that Yugoslavia competed until 2002. It uses the code YUG up until those Games. So that's what we should go with. The IOC treats YUG as one continuous entity, so the article "Yugoslavia at the Olympics" should reflect that. Aridd (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Yugoslavia → FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro → Serbia. FR Yugoslavia was one same country as Serbia and Montenegro, what happened was that they kept the name Yugoslavia between 1992 and 2003. One thing is name of country, another, country itself. Either we separate periods 1900–1992, 1992–2006, 2006–onwords, or we merge 1900–2006, 2006–onwords. NEVER 1900–2003 because from 1992 to 2006 there was one SAME country competing named FR Yugoslavia between 1992 to 2003 and known as "Serbia and Montenegro" in its final stage of existance, between 2003 to 2006. In 2003 all that happened was that one same country JUST changed name from "FR Yugoslavia" to "Serbia and Montenegro". So 1992 till 2006 MUST be together cause was one same country different from Yugoslavia prior 1992 and diffeent from Serbia after 2006 (actually was all same from 1900 to nowadays with Olympic headquarters in Belgrade, just that the country changed size and names on some occasions and COI insists in separating it and not attributing all to nowadays Serbia. FkpCascais (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, but this was all carefully explained in the above discussions. With every sporting event, we follow that sports governing body on the matter. In this case that is the IOC. You have correctly explained the political situation, but unfortunately the sportive situations differs from that. The IOC only recognized on continuous olympic entity called simply "Yugoslavia (YUG)" until 2003. All medals and achievements were awarded to that one olympic entity and this can be easily verified. The only thing is that this olympic entity represented a different actual sovereign country before 1992 and after 1992 (and even another one in the early 20th century). All of that is carefully explained in the articles on the relevant olympic delegations.Tvx1 15:04, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Seems like this has has come back again, and without continuing the discussion articles are being reverted again. I will stress again, as I just noted on my talk page, that WP:OLY policy (and I have been a member of this project for many years) has been to not separate participants that were renamed, such as in the case of Ceylon and Sri Lanka and many others. Our individual [Country] at the Olympics therefore must conform to out master list All-time Olympic Games medal table. This is not done just on a whim of a few editors, this would be changing longstanding project consensus. Objectively, post-breakup Yugoslavia was renamed Serbia and Montenegro. This is verifiable fact. Pre- and post-breakup Yugoslavia is not the same entity. This is why we have different Russian, Chinese, and German participation records. Sure, it might be a little complicated sometimes, but such is life. Jmj713 (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

You cannot unilaterally declare a consensus void because you don't like it. True post-breakup Yugoslavia has been renamed Serbia and Montenegro at some. But your timeline is wrong. The renaming did not happen in 1992 but in 2003. The first time Serbia and Montenegro appeared at the olympics as such was at the 2004 Summer Olympics. The results you keep adding to their article were not and still are not credited to them. In fact before 2003 the name "Serbia and Monetengro" was even invented yet before 2003. You act on the political situation, but we don't care about it. We act on the sportive results and the official Olympic authority (IOC) and they credit all results achieved by olympic delegations called Yugoslavia (including pre- and post-SFR) to one continuous Olympic entity existing from the early 20th century all the way up to and including the 2002 Winter Olympics. Since we have an article on the exploits of the various Yugoslav Olympic delegations, that's were we should list all the achievements credited to them by the IOC. It's high time you stop ignoring consensus and reliable sources and stop pushing your POV and thus stop disrupting Wikipedia. We don't need to reaffirm consensus every time someone creates a ruckus.Tvx1 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean by "we"? Please look over the history of the article in question and you'll see that for TEN YEARS this has been the case but in you come and unilaterally decide it has been wrong all along and all the editors and members of WP:OLY have been wrong for a decade? And once again you did not address my point and deflected. Our records conform to political entities and we keep records of renamed entities together. Post-breakup Yugoslavia was renamed Serbia and Montenegro. It does not matter when that happened. If Greece will be renamed Google for the next Olympics, for example, we will have to continue the Greece article and simply rename it to Google at the Olympics, but all the records will reflect past participation as Greece. This is how it has always been does and it makes logical sense. Post-breakup Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro is the same entity. However, pre-breakup and post-breakup Yugoslavia are definitely not. This is fact and you cannot argue otherwise. If you do, we will never get anywhere as you are being deliberately disingenuous then. I hope I have clarified my factual position as best I could. Jmj713 (talk) 22:46, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Safe for the fact that your "factual" position isn't "factual" at all. Multiple editors in this discussion have stated that we should follow the IOC. The post-breakup Yugoslavia results were credited by the IOC to YUG not SCG. SCG was only created in 2003 and first appeared at the Olympics in Athens in 2004. And the aforementioned results are still credited to YUG by the IOC. And we reflect that. Your claim that our records conform to political entities is quite patently wrong. We have many articles on Olympic delegations which do not conform to political entities. Independent Olympians, Unified Team, Olympic Athlete from Russia, Chinese Taipei, Korea and so on and on. Our records match the records as they are credited by the IOC. And you keep forcing YUG and SCG to be the only ones not to do that with a great disrespect for wikipedia process.Tvx1 22:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
You do realize throughout the history of the Olympics the codes used have changed numerous times. The same countries have had multiple codes and sometimes different countries have had the same one even. See List of IOC country codes. YUG being used for Serbia and Montenegro before it was named that is not a unqiue situation. You are trying to twist reality. Stop. Jmj713 (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
YUG has never been used for Serbia and Montenegro. The name Serbia and Montenegro was only invented in 2003. And only used at the olympics in 2002 and 2004. Look at any footage of the 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 Olympics and you will see the delegations appearing with simply the name of "Yugoslavia" in the ceremonies and the events. You're the one trying "to twist reality" because in reality the contested achievements are credited to "Yugoslavia" and not "Serbia and Montenegro". You have literally nothing in support of your stance. And you have no authority over the other editors so there is no point in shouting "Stop".Tvx1 22:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Please try to read what I am writing carefully. Throughout the history of the Olympics, countries have often appeared under different codes. Do you disagree that post-breakup Yugoslavia, as it was known then, and Serbia and Montenegro, which it was simply renamed into later, is the same geopolitical entity? Because it is and that's a fact. And because it is the same entity, it does not matter what S&M's previous codes may have been, it's completely irrelevant. For some reason you keep grasping at that one point, but it is irrelevant. Post-breakup Yugoslavia CANNOT be the same as pre-breakup Yugoslavia. That would be the same as combining the records of Soviet Union with Russia. It's not logical. So yes, please stop. Jmj713 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

No I have never ever claimed that SFR Yugoslavia and FR Yugoslavia were the same geopolitical entity. Nor were FR Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. After all a federal republic≠state union. The citizens even got a new legal nationality because of the change. What you however are utterly unable to grasp is that sportive entities are not synonymous with geopolitical entities in any way and that our articles on sportive entities at the olympics do not care about geopolitical entities in any way or form. In fact we have many articles on Olympic sportive entities which do not correspond to a geopolitical entity in any way (e.g. Independent Olympians, Unified team or Refugee Olympic team). The IOC, the sole authority on the subject, credits results up to and including the 2002 Olympics to the Yugoslavia Olympic entity and that is an indisputable fact. And it is our duty to correctly rely that information to our readers.Tvx1 23:01, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Please explain what is a "sportive entity"? Also, as per Wikipedia BRD policy, you were bold and changed long-standing consensus, I reverted, and began a discussion, and then you kept reverting, which I have to revert back each time, as we must go back to the original consensus per Wikipedia policies and we cannot revert to a version that is being disputed. Jmj713 (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You don't have to do anything. No-one is forcing you to revert. You are choosing to revert. You can easily leave the consensus version and discuss. You clearly do not understand Wikipedia process. As for a "sportive entity". In this case the IOC provides the definition for us. A delegation eligible to enter competitors into the olympic events. They recognize the delegations they credit the results to. And in this case they credit the contested results to one continuous entity called Yugoslavia. The contested results were never and still aren't credited to Serbia and Montenegro. So we have no justification not to reflect that.Tvx1 22:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll be repeating myself, but as I stated above, your bold edits were reverted. That should stop any further reverts on your part while this discussion is ongoing. There clearly was a consensus as you changed a decade-old consensus with illogical combining of two separate entities into one. Jmj713 (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
There is nothing that justifies your continuous reverts.Tvx1 23:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Olympic Festival

Has anyone ever found any more details about America's National Sports Festival? I've not come across a source for the results before, though I know Carl Lewis was at the 1982 event so figured it might be high enough level to warrant more coverage than the one article it has at the moment. I'm not of the right age nor nationality to assess how those events were perceived by Americans either, but would appreciate any insight! SFB 20:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

1906 Intercalated Games missing articles

I've noticed that we're missing practically all the event-level articles for the 1906 Intercalated Games. I'm making a start on the athletics ones. As the Sports Reference website is set to close soon, now would be a good time to add this data. SFB 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Huge swathe of potentially unnecessary templates - opinions?

I was doing some unrelated maintenance and came across about 3500 templates that fall into the Category:Sports at the Summer Olympics, as well as similar templates for the Commonwealth Games, Paralympics, and PanAm Games. This is stuff like these 76 templates and these 66 templates. I totally understand why these pages were created (convenience of editing across multiple pages) but now that the events are over the templates aren't going to change, and I see zero reason to have them.

Before I start a massive TFD to get rid out thousands of unnecessary templates, I thought I would get opinions from this project as to their continuing usefulness. The templates themselves aren't terribly large, so it's not like there would be an inordinately large amount of clutter created by subst'ing the content. Thanks for your input. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I think they still ensure consistency/prevent vandalism. The converse question to your suggestion is: what is the benefit of subst-ing if content is not expected to change? It seems like a non-problem.
I've started sketching out the data model for moving this kind of Olympics data to Wikidata, so the continuing usefulness will be that they will make it easy to work out where Wikidata invocations are required. SFB 18:05, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Nothing inherently wrong, I suppose, but past precedent (i.e. at least a dozen TFDs) have demonstrated that small-use templates that are only used on 1-2 pages and will not be updated should not be kept. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Serbia/Yugoslavia broader discussion

I am deeply sad no one ever notified me of the dscussions that took place here and I see there was very little participation in the discussion except few users.

I need to say that one extremelly important fact was not mentioned and in its abscense a wrong perception on this issue is present ammong many. The fact is that there was one same Olympic Commeette from 1910 till nowadays, and our articles fail to present that reallity. The OC had one same seat at Olympic organisation, was at one same adress in Belgrade all the time, and its presidents and most stuff were one the same despite country regime, name or size changes. We are talking about the Olympic Committee of Serbia.

The OC of Serbia was formed in 1910 and till 1918 represented the Kingdom of Serbia. In 1918 Serbia was enlarged and renamed Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The kingdom was renamed to Kingdom of Yugoslavia in 1929, however since 1918 the kingdom was colloquially named Yugoslavia so by most definitions, Yugoslavia was formed in 1918, although at Olympics the teams and athlets sent competed by its official name "Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes" between 1918 and 1929.

After WWII the king was overtroned and Tito installed a communist unipartidarian regime, so Kingdom of Yugoslavia became FPR Yugoslavia in 1945, and then in 1963 became officially named Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, short SFR Yugoslavia, while at Olympics, all teams and athletes were displayed as competing simply for Yugoslavia ever since 1929. SFR Yugoslavia entered democratic transition in late 1980s, and in 1992 numerous republics declared independence and formed their own new Olympic Comeettees. Serbia, whose political leadership favoured continuity, along Montenegro, decided to drop the term "Socialist" from the official name of the country (since now both were democratic republics) and the country was renamed to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, short FR Yugoslavia (often simply FRY). This smaller Yugoslavia consisting of Serbia and Montenegro, entered in a process of new transition by 2003 and the country droped the name Yugoslavia and got renamed "Serbia and Montenegro". In 2006 Montenegro called a referendum and voted its independence. Subsequently, Montenegro formed its own new Olympic Comeettee (same as did all other countries separating from Yugoslavia), while the Olympic Commeettee of S&M which was the one of FRY and before of all Yugoslavias, became the OC of Serbia, as it was at its foundation in 1910.

What we have here is a wrong perception on behalve of some editors that fail to understand that we are talking here about one same Olympic Commeettee all time. Same headquarters at same adress in Belgrade with same president and most stuff between all country changes in size and name. While others formed their own OCs as they became independent, this one allways kept its seat. However, some editors have a wrong perception that this OC represented Serbia and when Yugoslavia was formed, a new commeette was formed and dissolved when Yugoslavia ceased to exist. However that didnt happened. It was this same OC that kept its seat while all changes in country name, regime and size happened. Others joined or go forming their own OCs, while this one allways represented the different reencarnations Serbia and Yugoslavia had.

A source clearly indicating this is the List of Presidents of the Olympic Committee of Serbia at its official website. As we can see, N. Stevanovic was president of K. of Serbia OC and kept being president when OC became OC of K. of SCS in 1918. D. Stefanovic was president of OC of K. of SCS and continued being when k. of SCS became K. of Yugoslavia in 1929. Then Bakocevic who kept being president when in 1992 SFR Yugoslavia lost Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedonia, and became FR Yugoslavia in 1992. Then Kicanovic kept being pesident when FR Yugoslavia was renamed "Serbia and Montenegro" in 2003. Finally, Curkovic kept being president when "Serbia and Montenegro" separated and the OC became representative of Serbia.

Conclusion, the OC of Serbia was formed in 1910 repesenting the Kingdom of Serbia, however during its history the country changed regime, size, and name many times, to end up nowadays being the OC of Serbia which originally was. No Yugoslav OC was ever created, simply the Serbian one became representative of all Yugoslavia´s that existed. In my view, there should be no separations in the timeline since it was one and same OC all time. Aware that many argue that there is a difference between the periods the OC represented just Serbia vs the big Yugoslavia, the article for Yugoslav OC was created and sometimes Yugoslav results are separated (although often and in many sports are not). So, either we reflect this continuity in this Olympic Commeettee which would be the most correct in my view, either we create separate periods in its timeline. However, if we do make separate periods in its timeline, at least we should separate this periods with some logic. The country this OC represented changed regime, size and name many times. Initially it repesented Serbia, then Yugoslavia, then Serbia and its closest ally, finally Serbia again. There are two options in my view, either having it all together since it was one same OC all time with others joining and leaving and by leaving creating their own OCs, or separate it in two time periods tha mark the major difference in the existance of Serbian OC, which is when represented the big Yugoslavia and the rest. This would mean separating the 1918 till 1992 period. Despite the country competing as Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes from 1918 till 1929, that country was already known colloquially as Yugoslavia so it should go to Yugoslavia. While the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia despite competing as Yugoslavia between 1992 till 2003, it was just Serbia and Montenegro (fact so strong that ended up with the renaming of the country to S&M by its end), so it shouldnt be added to Yugoslavia. Separating periods in 2003 with the excuse of the name Yugoslavia makes no sense, since the country that year only changed its name, and, since the results from 1918 till 1929 are also added to Yugoslavia, however the teams and athletes competed as Kingdom of SCS in that period. So, if insisting in separating some period, going by name used doesnt seem as solution. World organsiations usually either leave it all together (as FIFA does), or separate the 1918-1992 big Yugoslavia period (as FIBA does).

Despite all, in my view it should be one same article from begining to nowadays cause it is one same Olympic Commeettee. FkpCascais (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline

  • 1910: Kingdom of Serbia is an independent country and forms its Olympic Committee (OC) in its capital, Belgrade.
  • 1918: Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes - WWI ends, Serbia expands greatly, the king decides to change the name of a now expanded kingdom to Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (SCS). The OC that represented Serbia now represents SCS at Olympics and incorporates most of Slovenian, Croatian and Serb (before 1918 Austro-Hungary included many Serb-inhabited regions such as Vojvodina) athletes that competed previously for Austro-Hungary at Olympics.
  • 1929: Kingdom of Yugoslavia - The kingdom of SCS, whose teams and athletes competed at the Olympics by its official name, SCS, becomes officially named Kingdom of Yugoslavia, as Yugoslavia was already the colloquial name of the kingdom ammong people. The OC of SCS changes its name to OC of Yugoslavia, and tems and athletes at Olympics start competing under name of Yugoslavia since then.
  • 1945: FPR Yugoslavia - At end of WWII the monarchy is abolished and a communist regime takes power. Kingdom of Yugoslavia becomes Federal People´s Republic of Yugoslavia (FPR Yugoslavia). The OC keeps being the same and teams and athletes keep on competing at Olympics under name Yugoslavia.
  • 1963: SFR Yugoslavia - FPR Yugoslavia changes its official name to Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFR Yugoslavia). OC is the same in Belgade, Olympics keep on refering to athletes and teams as Yugoslavia.
  • 1992: FR Yugoslavia - Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia declare independence and form their own Olympic Committees. Serbia and Montenegro stayed in Yugoslavia, however, since both became democratic republics, they decided to drop the word "Socialist" from country name and become Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FR Yugoslavia). The OC representing Yugoslavia continues its function but without counting with the athletes that decided to compete for the other newly created OCs.
  • 2003: Serbia and Montenegro - FR Yugoslavia enters into a new process of transition and the country changes name to Serbia and Montenegro. Yugoslav OC reflects this and changes the name too, and tems and athletes start competing under name of "Serbia and Montenegro" (SCG).
  • 2006: Serbia - Montenegro declares independence and forms its own OC. The state union of "Serbia and Montenegro" is left just with Serbia which includes Kosovo, and country changes officially name to Serbia. OC becomes OC of Serbia, back as it was known at its foundation in 1910.
  • 2014: IOC admits membeship of Olympic Committee of Kosovo, another OC that braks-away from Serbian OC.

I did my best to explain it all objectivelly, so now we can decide if we keep it all together or separate, and if separate, where? FkpCascais (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

  • @FkpCascais: While it is true that the Serbian NOC is the legal successor, sports statisticians typically separate the results when there is a fundamental change in the nature of the polity. The obvious example here is the Soviet Union, whose NOC is the same legal entity as the current Russian NOC. Similarly, modern Germany is the same legal entity as the former West Germany, yet on an Olympic basis we treat these as different teams. Regardless of the legal situation, sports statisticians treat Serbian team results as separate from Yugoslavian ones, for the very good reason that the modern nation of 7 million is clearly (in real terms) a changed polity from the former country of 23 million encompassing the borders of 6–7 other nations. It's not a legal argument, it's an argument of sports culture. SFB 00:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@Sillyfolkboy: OK, so what time period you believe we should split? FkpCascais (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
@FkpCascais: I don't think there is any dispute that the 1912 team should be classed under Serbia. The teams from 1920 to 1988 seem well categorised under Yugoslavia, rather than Serbia, considering the changed nature of the shared Kingdom. I would class the 1992 team with that too, particularly given the unusual circumstances of Macedonian Vesna Dunimagloska featuring in the team. From 1994–2006, the nation went relatively unchanged and I don't think it makes sense to lump that in with Yugoslavia's history. The team competing as FR Yugoslavia or Serbia and Montenegro consisted of teams where the vast majority of athletes are Serbian, with only one further minority (of Montenegrins). I can see two viewpoints on that – (1) treat that period as a separate team as "Serbia and Montenegro", followed by separate Serbian and Montenegrin teams, or (2) fold this period into the history of Serbia at the Olympics, with just one new Montenegro team appearing in 2008 (obviously it makes sense to note Montenegrins' past Olympic achievements within other teams on this page, but I would not reallocate medals). The current logic of having Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics as just the 2004 & 2006 Olympic teams doesn't make much sense to me, other than on the basis that the country changed its official name (not an expert, but it seems like an Upper Volta case).
The sports reference website follows the first approach [4], so I think there is a solid basis in sourcing for that. I've got a lot of time of the second approach too. Consider the hypothetical (?) of Scotland declaring independence from the United Kingdom; I would be immensely surprised if the end result was anything other than Scotland being treated as a new nation and the Great Britain team remaining as-is in spite of that change.
To add more info, there are differing approaches officially in the sport of athletics (my area of expertise). The IAAF treats up to 2002 as Yugoslavia, and up to 2006 as Serbia and Montenegro, then Serbia and Montegro separately thereafter. SFB 23:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your comment, you brough very valuable insights on the issue. Currently, the problem resides here where you can see an edit-war going on. Both sides agree in spliting Serbia on one side and Yugoslavia on another, but one side drows the line in 1992 and the other in 2003. So that needs to be solved out.
I must say that in my view there would be two reasonable options, one would be to put it all together since there is continuity in the process while others come and go in different stages and form their own OCs (as in your Scotland exemple). The other reasonable option would be to split Yugoslavia out (as in your Germany exemple). However, makes sense to split the "big" Yugoslavia which ended in 1992, rather than splitting it in 2003 only because Serbia and Montenegro kept the name Yugoslavia for over a decade. Splitting in 2003 seems to be done by someone who goes just by the name Yugoslavia, however, by that logic, the period should exclude the 1918-1929 period because back then there was no Yugoslavia but Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. And we all know no one separates Kingdom SCS from Yugoslavia because it was obviously the same country which just changed its name, same as in 2003, when FR Yugoslavia changed name to Serbia and Montenegro (exactly the Burkina Faso case). Making a separation in 2003 separates the results of one same country FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro in two only because the country officially changed its name in its last 3 years of existance.
The editor insisting in making the cut in 2003 seems to believe that some separatee Yugoslav OC existed and ceased to exist in 2003. Wrong. That didnt happened. There was no special Yugoslav OC, it was one same all time which kept adapting to country name and size. So the cut has to be made having in mind other parameters that not country name. For instance, what makes sense is to separate the period during which existed the 20+ million inhabitants country (close, but less than half Serbs) named Kingdom SCS or Yugoslavia (1918 till 1992) from the period in which the OC represented a ~10 million inhabitants country (over 75% Serbs) named Serbia or FR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro. The editor may think opposing the cut in 2003 may be some Serbian POV-pushing, but it is not, from the plenty of discussions at talk page of Serbia and Montenegro one can see that non-Serbian editors from former Yugoslavia insisted the article to be renamed from FR Yugoslavia to Serbia and Montenegro and they support the denial of Yugoslaviness to that totally Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia in which they didnt take part in. So non-Serb editors actually prefer to have the period all nations were in separated from the other periods it was just Serbia and its allies and provinces and the rest were excluded.
An easy way to see it is: while all nations were included in Yugoslavia, it was Yugoslavia, once most had their own OCs and even competed agaist Yugoslavia, that is already more of a Serbia then Yugoslavia.
In my view the 1992 participation should not be joined to big Yugoslavia because most competitors from other republics already participated in their own OCs and the Yugoslav team at Seoul was already almost exclusively Serbian. The case of Dunimagloska is not that strange in a sense that numerous top athletes livig in the region choose to live in Belgrade because it has the major clubs and best facilities, and since 1992 was still very early with independences just happening, many peoople were still not knowing what was going on and the ones pro-Yugoslav oriented opted to stay with Serbia who was by then, at least officially, trying to keep Yugoslavia together. Macedonia was part of Kingdom of Serbia till 1918 and many Macedonians were pro-Yugoslav and pro-Serbian.
I would suggest cutting periods same as political events happened, Yugoslavia was formed in 1918, disbanded in 1991/92, Serbia and Montenegro formed in 1992 and disbanded in 2006. FkpCascais (talk) 02:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sillyfolkboy. At Wikipedia we do not go by our own preference or assumptions of the reality. We reflect reliable sources. In case of crediting of sporting results we reflect who the relevant authority of sporting events in question, in this case the IOC, actually credits the contested results to. It is a very simple, indisputable and easily verifiable fact that the IOC credits all the results ever achieved by delegations called "Yugoslavia" to Yugoslavia and only the results from the 2004 and 2006 Olympics to Serbia and Montenegro. We have no choice but to reflect that since doing otherwise would be clear cut original research and synthesis. It's the exact same reason why we don't split Great Britain with and without the whole of Ireland and, more recently, Serbia with and without Kosovo. The IOC doesn't split them either. For some reason FkpCascais and some others keep dragging politic into this when the only thing that matters here are sportive achievements. And I have never claimed a special OC existed as FkpCascais pretends. As explained I just go by the official sources.Tvx1 23:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The IOC is wrong here. It happens. Their website, by the way, has always been poor in reflecting records. Jmj713 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Really? And we have to take the word of a random wikipedia for that? Again, OR. The IOC are the authority, you aren't. Check any footage from the 1996-2002 olympics and you'll competitors appearing at the ceremonies and events as simply Yugoslavia (YUG).Tvx1 23:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Once again, it does not matter what the code or even the name was at that time. It matters who the entity itself was. DR Congo was Zaire. Chinese Taipei was Taiwan and The Republic of China. There are tons of examples like that. Jmj713 (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
And for all of them we reflect the official results as published the IOC. For someone reason Yugoslavia and SCG are the only ones were some users fiercely object to do that with no reliable sources supporting them.Tvx1 00:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, here's one RS, if you need it. But you don't, actually, because crediting post-1992 participation to pre-1992 Yugoslavia is not logical. It's like 2 + 2 = 7 Jmj713 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Can't see anything which makes that source reliable.Tvx1 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1: The policy as it stands, advocates that where there is a plurality of significant perspectives, then that plurality should be reflected on Wikipedia. It's important to consider that the IOC is not an unquestionable authority on the Olympics – indeed, as the official organisation, we really need to supplement their primary coverage with that of independent secondary sources to ensure we have a balance against its biases. There is a strong tradition of this when it comes to things like List of Olympic Games scandals and controversies, and there is no reason why the views of respected, non-official statisticians should not be similarly represented (see Marathon world record progression as an example of how that looks). It is possible to document the varying ways in which Yugoslavian history is presented. One difficulty we are going to face in terms of this plurality is that the work of the Sports Reference website is soon to be neutered and redacted, as the IOC has bought it (no doubt in part because it was unhappy that it did not have full control of the most prominent Olympic statistics website).
On a general note, I think the idea that Wikipedia does not reflect editors' preferences is a false belief; everything from content to policy is an expression of editors' preferences. I don't consider Wikipedia's policy of reflecting all significant views as a "neutral" stance either (despite what WP:NPOV says) – I see it is a highly political stance which encourages the maintenance and development of societies containing multiple view points. This is the reason why censorship of Wikipedia occurs – Wikipedia is a form of cultural imperialism. That said, I agree with its stance (hence why I am here). I think it's important to recognise what we are doing at Wikipedia is very political. The idea that FkpCascais is bringing politics into this and we are some group of neutral participants is a real mischaracterisation of what is truly happening here. SFB 13:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If it comes to crediting results, than yes the IOC IS the unquestionable authority. The IOC are the ones actually in charge of awarding the contested results. I'm pretty certain they know damn well who they awarded these results to.Tvx1 17:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The IOC releases the official results, but there are plenty of other significant perspectives we need to incorporate. For example, it is insufficient to state Jaak Uudmäe as the 1980 Olympic triple jump champion without providing context to that result. Similarly, it is not simply a question of blindly following an IOC definition of "Germany at the Summer Olympics", because there are multiple interpretations of that concept. I see no reasons against contextualising later Serb-led Yugoslavian teams with the Serbia at the Olympics article, just as we have in the Germany article. I would say that the perspectives of the Sports Reference site statisticians and the Serbian Olympic Committee are more significant enough to warrant coverage. This isn't about messing with the official IOC tallies (they of course should remain) it's about providing a full view of perspectives on the matter. SFB 20:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Of course we can add some context and background in the articles on Yugoslavia at the Olympics, Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics and Serbia at the Olympics. In fact that is actually already mostly the case. However this discussion deals with where we actually put the results. And I see no reason not to follow the IOC on that matter. We reflect the IOC results for all other competitors. So why should we make a sole exception for YUG and SCG. THAT would actually make thing confusing. If we start doing that, what would stop anyone from splitting the results from Serbia with Kosovo from those from Serbia without Kosovo?Tvx1 14:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If you need more reliable sources, look at Historical Dictionary of the Olympic Movement (ISBN 978-0810855748): 1 and 2. Jmj713 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Some random book by some random author. It's clearly wrong as it's clearly contradicted by the actual events. Just look at the footage from the contested olympics.Tvx1 17:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It should be a book written by JK Rowling? Jmj713 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
If all you have are empty denigrations for a significant work on the Olympics and its (ISOH member) author, then I suggest you have joined the wrong project! SFB 20:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I am a bit lost with the motives of certain editors. I dont understand why would someone wont to split one country resuts in two just because the country changed its name in its final 3 years of existance. Tvx1, I told you that nothing significant happened in 2003 besides the country name change (significant was 3 years later when Montenegro became independent) and you said obviously something more happened. I asked you what was I missing and you failed to answer. I supposed you thought some "Yugoslav OC" existed and once Yugoslavia stoped being country name, the Yugoslav OC ceased to exist as well, but that is not the case, it was one same OC repesenting all this countries ever since begining to nowadays simply just changing country name as the country did itself. Then I mentioned the stance from non-Serbians regarding the issue of Yugoslavia/FR Yugoslavia, just to show you this was not an issue of Serbian POV-pushig, but just a case of correct separation of time periods, you said you dont care what they think. You behave as if editors opposing you are backing up some natioalsiitc POV you are fighting about, but that is not the case, we are just pointing out a logical flaw in this. I am perplex in your unability in wanting to even know about reality and not just some guys adding statistics without obviously undestanding anything but just going by the simpliest, country name. FkpCascais (talk) 00:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Because that's how the authority in charge of crediting these results credits them like that. There are no ulterior motives. How difficult is it really to understand that? And have explained you multiple times that significant things DID happen in 2003. It was not simply a name change. The constitutional structure of the country changed. New passports were issued. A new nationality was created. And most importantly a new competitor with a new independent record was registered with the IOC.Tvx1 14:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason we do not split Serbia without Kosovo from Serbia with Kosovo is that Serbia didn’t cease to exist as a country. Every time a split happens in our Olympic tables, the country ceases to exist. Which is what happened in 1992 and Yugoslavia’s ceases to exist. Jmj713 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Tecnically, the Olympic Commeettee founded in Belgrade in 1910 never ceased to exist till nowadays. It kept its seet in IOC as still does. The presidents of the OC kept their mandates (as seen at the source I presented) despite all changes in all accassions. What changed it is the country name and country size. The OC started as being representative of Kingdom of Serbia, then of Yugoslavia, then of Serbia and Montenegro state union (known as FR Yugoslavia for most time), and finally again of Serbia. Others joined or left the OC at different times, but whenever they left they had to create an OC of their own, while this one seeded in Belgrade continued representing the country Serbia was forming as political entity, whatever the name.
However, the issue is that there seems to be a general agreement to exclude one period, and most agree to exclude the one of the big old Yugoslavia corresponding to time period of 1918 till 1991. That is the period the Belgrade-based OC represented all and there were no other OCs in that territory. Once in 1992 there were already 4 other newly-created OCs, this one should be separated because despite the fact that it continued to represent a country named Yugoslavia, it was a quite different Yugoslavia, considerable smaller. Best regards! FkpCascais (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
No, the reason why we split the Serbia's is simply because the IOC doesn't. We follow the IOC with all their other records, but only for Yugoslavia and Serbia&Montenegro that seems to be problem. I can see no reason why to make an exception. As for FkpCascias you're thinking this through way to much. We simply need to attribute to results to the correct competitors per the authority of these events. The context and background is already sufficiently presented in the the contested articles. All the rest you mention is just beyond the scope of these articles.Tvx1 01:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Tvx1 and FkpCascais: I've already stated above that this is not a unique issue. We have extensive coverage in the Ireland at the Olympics article about people and teams that the IOC specifically designates as not part of the Ireland team. The IOC should not solely dictate the scope of our articles, though we should document what is the IOC's stance on these subjects.
I fully endorse including similar coverage of the post-1992 Yugoslavia team in the Serbia and Montenegro at the Olympics article. Similarly, it would make sense to document the achievements of Serbian Olympians in non-Serbia teams at Serbia at the Olympics. Currently that article's failure to include that makes it the outlier, compared to the approach taken at Ireland, Montenegro at the Olympics, Ukraine at the Olympics etc.
I oppose modification of the main IOC Olympic medal tallies in respect of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro, though these totals should be caveated with notes showing the stances on this subject by both Sports Reference and the Serbian Olympic Committee. SFB 14:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
The problem in making a list of Serbian participants in period 1918 till 2006 is that the list would be extremelly large (sort of Russians in USSR) they were the majority, specially in team sports, and some editions like the ones in first decades of Yugoslavia or, specially the ones after 1992, would include almost all participants. But it is a thing to do. FkpCascais (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
That's more or less the same stance I have. The contested articles can perfectly provide context and background relating to the previous status of those athletes. The same already happens for instance with Kosovo at the Olympics, giving some background to the Kosovar athletes competing with non-Kosovo teams. However with regards to the actual results, these should match the official IOC records. Footnotes could and should indeed be used to provide context to these results.Tvx1 14:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Tvx1 is obviously refusing to see reason. So I want to just take it back to basics. Please answer, do you acknowledge that Yugoslavia pre- and post-breakup are two different countries? Jmj713 (talk) 15:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"...at the XXXX Paralympics" Disability Classification

It appears that pretty much all "...at the XXXX Paralympics" Good Articles (such as Turkey at the 2014 Winter Paralympics) have a section named "Disability classification". Between all these articles, they is tremendous duplication in this section. In some cases, there is word for word duplication while in other cases the sections are just worded differently. I'm wondering if there was ever a discussion in this WikiProject that concluded that each of the "...at the XXXX Paralympics" articles should have this section in them. Including this section seems to be out-of-scope of what these types of articles are discussion and the information presented in the "Disability classification" sections are included in the main article. Do any members of this WikiProject have any thoughts about this section included/removed from these articles?--Dom497 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

  • I think they should be included in every-one of these articles, as it provides a short summary of why there are different events of the same type (Say, men's slalom alpine skiing) without having to go somewhere else to understand that there are "divisions" and codes used. Courcelles (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Basketball at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament

Please review Draft:Basketball at the 2000 Summer Olympics – Women's tournament and add references to it if possible. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Games pagemove

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Subdivision of winter sports into disciplines

We need to decide once and for all how many sports there are in the winter olympics and whether they are divided into disciplines or not. Up to and including the 2014 Winter Olympics the consensus appears to have been 7 sports and 15 disciplines, but in the Infobox Olympic games/events sub-template the 2018 and 2022 entries have consistently been reverted back to 15 sports with no division into disciplines. Whichever way we go, we need to be consistent. I've recently been working on the List of Olympic Games tables in the winter and summer olympic articles and the sports/disciplines figures that are presented there need to be correct.

The seven sports are skiing, ice skating, sliding, ice hockey, biathlon, curling and snowboarding. ---(this is actually slightly incorrect, see change further down...) Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The first three are subdivided up into disciplines as follows:
SKIING: alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, freestyle skiing, nordic combined, ski jumping (total 5)
ICE SKATING: figure skating, short track speed skating, speed skating (total 3)
SLIDING: bobsleigh, luge, skeleton (total 3)
Ice hockey, biathlon, curling and snowboarding effectively each have only one discipline (total 4).
So adding up the disciplines we get a total of 15.

In the summer olympics articles, the sports are listed with the disciplines indented underneath. This layout should really be used in the winter olympics articles too for consistency, so it would look something like this:

(This is not quite in alphabetical order but it fits in much better like this.) I know it looks a bit odd, but I think it's technically correct. Please can I have some input on this. Thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I've been doing some digging and found information in the Olympic sports article...

The term "sport" in Olympic terminology refers to all events sanctioned by an international sport federation, a definition that may differ from the common meaning of the word "sport". One sport, by Olympic definition, may comprise several disciplines, which would often be regarded as separate sports in common usage. Skating ... includes four disciplines: figure skating, speed skating, short track speed skating, and synchronized skating...(latter non-Olympic) The sport with the largest number of Olympic disciplines is skiing, with six: alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, ski jumping, nordic combined, snowboarding, and freestyle skiing.

Three out of the seven sports consist of multiple disciplines.

The table in that section shows the seven sports to be:

  1. Skating – figure skating / speed skating / short track speed skating – (all governed by ISU)
  2. Ice hockey – (governed by IIHF)
  3. Curling – (governed by WCF)
  4. Skiing – cross-country / alpine / ski jumping / Nordic combined / freestyle / snowboarding – (all governed by FIS)
  5. Biathlon – (governed by IBU)
  6. Luge – (governed by FIL)
  7. Bobsleigh/Skeleton – Bobsleigh / Skeleton – (both governed by IBSF)

Which is slightly different to what I said earlier, so the winter sports/disciplines list would change to:

(Again I've not quite put it in alphabetical order to best fit the available space.)

HOWEVER, the IOC lists 15 winter sports at https://www.olympic.org/sports Maybe they have lost sight of the fact that these 15 "sports" are in fact "disciplines" that are encompassed by the original 7 sports. I don't know. Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The IOC link (https://www.olympic.org/sports) also shows 40-odd summer sports listed, which should clearly be "disciplines", so it looks to me as if the IOC have relaxed their definition, perhaps to minimise confusion, since they can just display each discipline with its own neat icon at the same level as all the others, rather than giving a sport/discipline hierarchy... Anyway, surely Wikipedia should uphold the correct terminology for the sake of clarity/accuracy? Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Correct terminology? Looking at Olympic sports the content is either unsourced or referring to https://www.olympic.org/sports - where they have changed the approach like you mentioned. Do we have any sources to go against the official IOC? Do we actually have any other source to determine what is Olympic sport and what is discipline? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've invited some more input on this on the Olympic sports talk page, so hopefully we can get to the bottom of it soon. Rodney Baggins (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've found 2 sources on the IOC website:

(1) https://secure.registration.olympic.org/en/faq/category/detail/24/id/37#faq_37

A sport is that which is governed by an International Federation (IF).
A discipline is a branch of a sport comprising one or more events.
An event is a competition in a sport or discipline that gives rise to a ranking.
Thus, skiing is a sport, while cross-country skiing, Alpine skiing, snowboarding, ski jumping and Nordic combined are disciplines.
Alpine skiing is a discipline, while the super-G, giant slalom, slalom and combined are events.

(2) https://stillmed.olympic.org/media/Document%20Library/OlympicOrg/Documents/Document-Set-Teachers-The-Main-Olympic-Topics/The-Modern-Olympic-Games.pdf#_ga=1.185261353.105971277.1482485635
(see page 9)

Sport − For a sport to be made an Olympic sport it has to be governed by an International Federation recognised by the IOC
Examples:
Swimming at the Games is governed by the International Swimming Federation (FINA);
Skating by the International Skating Union (ISU).
Discipline − An Olympic sport comprises one or several disciplines.
Examples:
Water polo and diving are disciplines of swimming.
Speed skating and figure skating are disciplines of skating.

I've also sent a question directly to the IOC:

<<HOW MANY SPORTS ARE THERE CURRENTLY IN THE WINTER OLYMPICS? SOME PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK THAT STRICTLY SPEAKING THERE ARE 7 SPORTS, DIVIDED UP INTO 15 DISCIPLINES. BUT ON YOUR SPORTS PAGE (WWW.OLYMPIC.ORG/SPORTS) YOU SHOW 15 WINTER SPORTS ALL WITH THEIR OWN PICTOGRAMME AT THE SAME "LEVEL" WITH NO MENTION OF DISCIPLINES. THIS IS VERY CONFUSING. HAVE YOU RELAXED THE DEFINITION OF SPORTS/DISCIPLINES? ARE THEY ALL JUST CONSIDERED TO BE SPORTS NOW? OR WAS THAT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES?>>
Awaiting a reply. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
http://olympstats.com/2018/01/24/sports-disciplines-and-phases/ Jeff in CA (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, I had an email from a research coordinator at the IOC the other day saying that the way in which the information is displayed on olympic.org does not reflect exactly the hierarchy of sports, disciplines and events and they acknowledge that it can be confusing. The situation is clarified in these sources:
  1. FAQ states difference between sport, discipline and event, and gives the example of skiing being a sport, with disciplines of cross-country skiing, Alpine skiing, snowboarding, ski jumping and Nordic combined.
  2. "IOC factsheet" Table A on page 3 clearly shows the 7 winter sports and 15 disciplines.
So I shall be making use of this information shortly. The sports list in 2018 Winter Olympics will be my first port of call. To be consistent with the lists in the summer olympics articles, it should show a hierarchy like this:
I'm glad this has been cleared up, as I personally felt it was highly unlikely that the IOC had "changed its approach", and now we have proof. Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Should this template {{Winter Olympic sports}} also reflect that? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes you're right, I can change that. Watch this space. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

2020 qualification

The official qualification standards for most events have been released. Qualification competitions have begun, with at least one (non-host) qualification complete and many, many more having begun on the path to qualification. Is there any particular reason the qualification pages should be changed to redirects rather than providing the information available at this point? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:40, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no point in having articles with empty tables. Most sports do not start qualification till 2019, and articles can be created then. For now, no point, except in the sports with qualifications have started (or will start in 2018). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
You do realize there is plenty of text on those articles, explaining the qualification process? Tables aren't everything. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
There is 0 point in introducing an article where the info can be stored on the main article. When qualification starts, and when the tables become necessary they can be restored. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@User:Primefac, what are your thoughts on this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
The information is already more detailed than is appropriate for the main article. Qualification has already started in many of these events, and the detailed descriptions of the qualification process is appropriate for sports where the official qualification system has been released. Your baseless accusations of disruption and threats of blocking are not helpful, either. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 19:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Would've been helpful to link articles concerned. I'm supporting Jonel here. Since when it's illegal to create articles with sourced material? But I suggest hiding the empty tables with<!-- --> (weightlifting for example). --Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Here's the set of articles. I'm fine with commenting out tables with no athletes/teams qualified yet. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
If the qualification has started for a sport, or is about to start shortly, then I don't see any issue with the article being created, provided it's all sourced. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Sidebars

For the articles detailing particular sports at particular games, and the events and other related pages within them, we have sidebars for navigation. The current ones are generally in the series that looks like {{ArcheryAt1996SummerOlympics}}. Some new ones have been created that look like {{Archery at the Olympics}}. There was a TFD related to the new ones that resulted in a "keep" decision. (The accessibility issues raised in the TFD appear to have been addressed, but if they need further work on that, that can be done). There has been pushback to use of the new templates under the argument that there is no consensus here for a change. So, here goes: I, as someone who has made a bunch of the old ones, support the new templates. The two sets convey the same information. The new ones, however, look much better--especially when used in conjunction with {{Infobox Olympic event}}. You can currently see the difference at Archery at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's team vs. Archery at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's team. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't the picture of the venue be used in the infobox? And how come the Men's events and Women's events are aligned at Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics but not there? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Neutral Such a large change requires consensus from the Wikiproject that governs the articles. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like a good idea to me. I personally hate sidebars because they tend to impinge on the article and push stuff around too much, but the default hide option would prevent that from happening. I like the way it fits neatly under the infobox widthwise, and it certainly looks more modern than the other one. My only concern is that if this reaches consensus, the new design should be implemented quickly and completely to avoid inconsistencies across the suite. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment before giving my vote. Even though the new one looks better, I liked that the old one showed the events, but now they are hidden by default, which is weird because the whole purpose of that sidebar is to show those links. And looks like some article's have 280px images, so the 2 templates don't have the same width (1, 2). Archery is also not the best sport to bring as an example (only 4 events), how would the new template look compared to the old one in athletics/swimming/weightlifting/wrestling/shooting/gymnastics events? Here the new one overlays the timetable--Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10: To answer both your replies. Sidebars are navigational tools, not decorative link boxes. If navboxes at the bottom of the page can be collapsible, why not sidebar navboxes too? Especially when sidebars have a bigger effect on the design of the body of the article. Ideally, the official pictogram of the discipline at the games should be used as the lead image in {{Infobox Olympic event}} for articles about the disipline as a whole, since they're the most recognisable graphic associated with a sport at a particular games. See articles such as Swimming at the 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016 Summer Olympics. I'll soon be uploading and placing the rest of the pictograms that have not been uploaded yet when I trace some vectors up. In the case of Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics, {{SwimmingAt2004SummerOlympics}} is so ungodly long that if you stretch your browser window large enough the sidebar will push the image of the Aquatic Center so far down that it'll land in between the two schedule wikitables pushing them both off-center. Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics features an infobox that has both an image of the venue and an image of the Olympic rings, which would obviously make the infobox much longer than it would if there was simply just a display of the discipline's official pictogram at that year's games. Even with the venue and rings images, for me at 100% zoom on Firefox and other browsers, it doesn't overlap the table. For the apparent difference in infobox and sidebar width too, I simply don't see them. What kind of browser setup do you have, may I ask? It widths look perfectly equal on Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and iOS Safari at 100% zoom. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:33, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm using Chrome with MonoBook and 110%zoom, screenshot. Even with 100% zoom, the Men's and Women's events are not aligned with new template here because of the image. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10: Since there is no "Venue" section for the Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics article, I've gone ahead and created one, and voilà! The design now works. Here's how it appears on Chrome, Edge, and Firefox at full screen, 100% zoom and 250px width thumbnails. As for the oddity in your Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics screenshot, I cannot recreate it on my end. An expanded {{Swimming at the Olympics}} sidebar simply pushes the wikitable to the side instead of awkwardly merging it like it does in your screenshot. Here's how it looks on Chrome, Edge, and Firefox in windowed mode, 100% zoom. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 01:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@PhilipTerryGraham: Wouldn't it be better to just align the schedule to left insted of center? Here's how Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics would look for me with 100%zoom and Chrome. It's about the screen size - try dragging your browser window smaller (before clicking edit) and look how would it look then, another version. But there must be a technical solution for this. Btw is the new template hidden in mobile view? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10: On my end, usage of {{Athletics at the Olympics}} on the Athletics at the 2012 Summer Olympics article simply pushes the wikitables down. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10: I've gone ahead and made an inquiry at the village pump, if you're interested in giving a lil' input there! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:31, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I suggest starting a Rfc for the whole template replacing discussion. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@Pelmeen10: I don't see the need for it. There hasn't been any outright objection to the sidebars in this whole three-week debacle, especially now that the only two issues raised have been solved. As Izno stated on the village pump, you can study his edit to the events table in Swimming at the 2000 Summer Olympics and edit accordingly for other articles so that other events tables don't break too. I mostly want to focus on the sidebar itself. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 12:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Missing country data template

 Alsace-Lorraine

It's been suggested to me that this could be the best place asking for help. There isn't a country data template for Alsace-Lorraine. They were quite active in rowing and competed at the European Rowing Championships under their own flag. I've fudged things in the results templates as per the example shown here but for medaltemplates in infoboxes to work, I understand a country data template is needed (link to a case in point). Who has experience with this; who could help? Schwede66 09:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Try now, Alsace-Lorraine. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Pelmeen10. That's great. That solves the flag issue for results tables. Any idea how we tackle the infobox issue? The way I understand Template:Medal, there needs to be a three letter code that it can refer to. There isn't something for Alsace-Lorraine in either the ISO, FIFA or IOC lists. Do we make a three letter code up? Schwede66 19:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
There's no need for any 3-letter code. "{{MedalCountry | {{flagicon|Alsace-Lorraine}} [[Alsace-Lorraine]] }}" is good enough in template:medal. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I see. Thanks heaps! Schwede66 22:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at {{Infobox Olympic games}}

Some major changes to {{Infobox Olympic games}} have been proposed. Hop on over to participate in the discussion over these changes! :) – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Summer and Winter Youth Olympics - "boys" v "men"

Wikipedia currently has the naming system of "boys", "girls", and "mixed" for articles and references to individual events at the Summer and Winter Youth Olympics. Official reports, and broadcasts and replays use "men", "women", and "mixed" instead, however. Why wouldn't we use the official gender specifications for the events, may I ask? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Would follow the official men/women usage. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:54, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Football at the Summer Olympics - participating nations

I improved the article Football at the Summer Olympics#Participating nations in my draft page here. I suggest to replace the present article. You can vote by agree or disagree.
Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. Agree . Fayçal.09 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  2. no Disagree. The current revision is fine as is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
  3. no Disagree. I feel like its fine as it is because of the fact that the red line ruined it for me. Animation is developing 00:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Venue categories at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive box

Hello, this is specifically about this Talk page (not Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics itself!) I notice that the Archive box at the top of this Talk page is out of date and despite rooting about in various template help pages I can't work out how to fix it. There are currently 17 archive pages but the list here is only complete up to Archive 14. We should also see:

  • Archive 15: July 24, 2015 – August 23, 2016
  • Archive 16: August 22, 2016 – April 3, 2018
  • Archive 17: January 30, 2018 –

Would someone who knows what to tweak please do this for me. If it's a problem with the bot – User:lowercase sigmabot III – it needs to be reported. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Medals table template

{{Medals table}} has just recently created so the total numbers of medal could be computed automatically. Suggestion for improvement is really appreciated on its talk page. Hddty. (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It has been proposed that the old medal table templates be deprecated in favor of the new one. Please contribute to the discussion if you wish. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Spyridon Louis

Urgent assistance is requested on this DYK nomination, as its nominator has not edited on over a week. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Congo

Should we move every article with "Congo" to "Republic of the Congo"? Example Congo at the Olympics. Hddty. (talk) 09:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Swaziland/Eswatini

The IOC now recognises the Eswatini Olympic and Commonwealth Games Association as the NOC for Eswatini (Swaziland) - https://www.olympic.org/eswatini The NOC code remains SWZ, and three athletes are competing in Buenos Aires under 'Eswatini' - https://www.buenosaires2018.com/results/en/all-sports/noc-entries-eswatini.htm 185.248.205.124 (talk) 14:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

See also this related move discussion for the article Swaziland. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Events at the xx Olympics, links

So recently links to Chronological summary, medal table and medal winners [5][6][7][8] were added to post 2014 Olympic templates, also to all similar Youth Olympic templates. These links are not to actual events (=redundant) and I don't really see a point to add these. What do you think? All these templates can be found at cat1/cat2. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Support the addition of the links. The main content of the articles like "Sport at the YYYY Games" is a medal table and list of medalists. So, the navboxes have the links to medal tables in the individual sports and finally should be linked to the "total medal table" and "summary list of all medallists". Nothing bad to have the "summary" links at the bottom of the page. 178.93.238.254 (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Obviously you support this if you were the person who added the links in the first place. There are lots of related articles if you look at {{2014 Winter Olympics}}, {{2016 Summer Olympics}} etc. Why did you choose those? --Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I am for addition because they contain the summary medal tables (or summary list of medal winners) similar to the pages about individual sports at the games. Navigation between medal tables in sports and total medal table in games is useful. 178.93.238.254 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove the links they don't link to the pages and are redundant. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Event categories for the Winter Olympics at CfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

More Swaziland fun

Hi. Please see the following page move discussion:

Not sure what precendent is used for countries that change names for the past Olympic appearances. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:RM discussion at Talk:Diving

A move discussion at Talk:Diving regarding the re-naming or re-purposing of that page may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC

Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Broken images on Olympics (and other games) articles

Some image (or other) file name was changed that causes red-links on many Olympics and (other games) articles. The list of these articles can be seen at Category:Articles with missing files. Thanks for your help! - tucoxn\talk 17:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It was caused by an edit on {{GamesSport}}, should be fixed now. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrestling event page moves

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

"Congo" vs. "Republic of the Congo" in Youth Olympic Games article titles and content

While disambiguating links to Congo, I became aware that there were duplicate articles for the performance of Republic of the Congo at this event on Wikipedia; Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics and Republic of the Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics. Following the naming convention I found in the body of the article 2018 Summer Youth Olympics, I merged the articles to "Republic of the Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics". I converted "Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics" to a disambiguation page. While checking for links to this new DAB page, I became aware that the template Template:Nations at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics referred to Republic of the Congo as "Congo" and linked to "Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics" rather than "Republic of the Congo at the 2018 Summer Youth Olympics" like the article itself. I have harmonised everything in these articles so that there is only one article for Democratic Republic of the Congo and a consistent name of "Republic of the Congo" is used throughout. I made these changes in good faith following what I saw and not out of any prejudged position on what name to use for Republic of the Congo.

Out of curiosity I took a look and it appears thet there are similar issues in the article sets for previous Youth Olympic Games, specifically 2014 at least. It may also be relevant to note thet the IOC refers to the Republic of the Congo simply as "Congo" (I discovered this after making the changes I describe above; I still regard these as an improvement as the usage is at last consistent and a duplicate article has been merged). You may wish to look at these articles and harmonise the articles and templates to use the same naming conventions. It may also be wise to create all 3 articles "Democratic Republic of the Congo at the <year and season> Youth Olympics", "Republic of the Congo at the <year and season> Youth Olympics" and "Congo at the <year and season> Youth Olympics" - redirecting or disambiguating at the unused one - to ensure duplicates are not inadvertently created in the future.

MegaSloth (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Help

Hello. Could someone please help me edit this draft? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2032_Summer_Olympics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yellow alligator (talk • contribs) 22:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Archive box

Per Rodney Baggins' request back in September, I have updated the archive box. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Reserve competitors

Would it be useful to capture those competitors who went to the Olympics as a reserve but did not compete? Schwede66 20:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If there was an RS that listed the reserves, I could potentially see that as a possibility to have a short list. Not sure the encyclopedic value, but because of that I won't really push either way. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I haven't come across too many sources that list them all (with the exception of East Germany; they usually announced their whole team at once and those who don't show up in Sports Reference either didn't go, or did go as reserves; easy to do further research on individuals). Most of the time, though, it's mentioned in a bio when somebody went to the Olympics as a reserve and didn't get to compete. That latter case doesn't lend itself for compiling lists. What one could do, though, is to capture those reserves in categories, e.g. Category:Olympic reserve competitors, Category:Olympic reserve competitors for foo, and Category:Reserve competitors at the YYYY Summer Olympics (and winter, of course). Thoughts? Schwede66 02:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

European Youth Olympic Festival

Hello i dont know if this should be here but it is Olympic event... in last days i tried to made some updates on European Youth Olympic Festival and i wanna ask if someone could upload logo for 2019 European Youth Summer Olympic Festival cose i dont know how to work with licenses of pictures. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancer1313 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Host nation qualified date for team sports

The host nation qualified date appears to show the same date the host city was awarded the Olympics. This is incorrect, because the qualification systems of each sport are not finalised until a couple years before the event. Host nations are almost always awarded a spot, but that is not always the case (see field hockey and Brazil in 2016). That's why the date slot should remain with {{n/a}} as there is no date to officially confirm when the host nation is qualified. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Partly agree. If there is a source like basketball 2016, date and venue should include in the table. Noncommittalp (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Anon changing templates - lists of Olympic medalists

After I reverted one of those anon edits I checked several other articles that can be accessed @{{Olympic medalists}} and over a long period of time some anon user(s) constantly keep changing flagIOCmedalist to flagIOCathlete. And every time they make dozens of edits in a row. Has it been dicussed which should be used? Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy links to {{flagIOCmedalist}} and {{flagIOCathlete}}. Primefac (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "medalist" is best-used in medal tables (big surprise) since it keeps the table a bit more compact. "Athlete" should, in my opinion, be used everywhere else. Primefac (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I think medalist should be used any topic where medals are being listed/discussed. Athlete should be for qualification articles, event articles etc. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
@Primefac: what kind of medal tables? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Like the one you listed above - if you put them as {{flagIOCathlete}} the table is a lot wider. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Notability – competitors in a demonstration sport

Doing a rewrite of the Australian football at the 1956 Summer Olympics article in my sandbox and there's a fair bit of red linkage going around. Only around half of the competitors in the match played at any stage of their career in the VFL, which is the main requirement for notability as an Australian footballer (see WP:NAFL). My query though is whether the fact that these players competed in this match now qualifies them to have an article, particularly if I can find a number of well-referenced information. For instance, one competitor for the amateur side – Murray Mitchell – does not have an article, but he captain-coached his team Old Melburnians to a premiership one year prior to the Olympics, and was vice captain in this demonstration match. Perhaps a catch-all "yes/no" answer may not be appropriate, but notability could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Basically in short, I'm asking whether the current notability requirement of having competed at any modern Olympics also counts if you competed in only a demonstration sport. Thanks, Gibbsyspin 10:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Hope I'm not screaming into the void here. Anyone? Gibbsyspin 05:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, people who compete in the demonstration events don't meet the notability requirements. However, if they have other coverage above just appearing in the demonstration event, then they could pass WP:GNG. The other option is to de-link the redlinks and leave them black. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lugnuts. Schwede66 23:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lugnuts as well.--Darwinek (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Winter Paralympics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Winter Paralympics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Winter Paralympics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 06:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussion

Hi. I started this AfD last night that you might find of interest. Sorry, forgot about it until now. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

AfD

Hi all, please see this AfD for discussion. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Support page update

Hi guys, I am glad to report that Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Winter articles has now finally brought up to date and is now aligns with Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Summer articles. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Lists of Olympic medalists by country

Should lists by country be created, as with Draft:List of Japanese Medalists at the Olympics? I would think having a category would be sufficient. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Those list pages do exist; see Category:Lists of Olympic medalists. Schwede66 17:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Surprised we don't have one yet for Japan. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Fine to create it, just to note it should be titled List of Olympic medalists for Japan and not List of Japanese medalists at the Olympics, as you could be Japanese by birth, but represent another country. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Inherent notability

Are Paralympians inherently notable? There's a chap on today's Who Dares Wins, this dude, who has apparently a silver and bronze medal from the 1988 Summer Paralympics and who I can't find an article about.--Launchballer 21:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:NOLYMPICS, an individual who has won a medal at the paralympics is considered to be notable. Primefac (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Olympic Games

Portal:Olympic Games, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Olympic Games and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Olympic Games during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --(I did not nominate this, just thought you guys wanted to know) Hecato (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics

A dispute has emerged at Field hockey at the 1908 Summer Olympics over what is the correct flag or flags to use. Great Britain did not compete in this tournament so I don't believe the Union Jack should be included. England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales competed independently. Also at issue is which Ireland flag to use. verses . The former has never been used by Hockey Ireland or it's predecessors. Any thoughts ? Djln Djln (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"" did not exist in 1908. It's not really a problem, it's you who makes it a problem. But since you are the one who wants to make the changes, you have to argue for your cause. DenSportgladeSkåningen (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth the discussion should be held at the talk page, not duplicated here. Primefac (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The rules for team sports in 1908 allowed each nation to enter up to four teams in an event. So technically England. Scotland, Ireland and Wales were competing as representatives of Great Britain rather than under their own flag. The National Olympic Association could, if they wished, have entered the four best club teams in the country inside of the teams that did compete. I think it's more appropriate to use the Union Flag inside the indivisual country flags. After all we don't use Scots, Irish or Welsh flags for individuals or teams in other sports Topcardi (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Ethiopia at the 2020 Summer Olympics

Please see this discussion. I don't know if any athletes have qualified yet, which could help. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Olympic Games now that it survived MfD? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely because of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  • I am currently a maintainer of the portal. If anyone else wants to be an additional maintainer. Please let me know. --Hecato (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hecato, I am ready to help with the maintenance of the portal. Nimrodbr (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Paralympic Games

Portal:Paralympic Games, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Paralympic Games and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Paralympic Games during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --(I did not nominate this, just thought you guys wanted to know) Hecato (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Republic of China page move

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

TfD

There's a TfD at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 14#Template:1952 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox that could also affect:

Template:2016 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox
Template:2012 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox
Template:2008 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox
Template:2004 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox
Template:2000 Summer Olympics convenience template navbox navbox

-- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Olympics/Deaflympics

As a WP Olympics member, I would like to collaborate Deaflympics taskforce with the WP Olympics mainly targeting the forthcoming 2019 Winter Deaflympics. Wikipedia has significantly low coverage related to Deaflympic articles. So I decided to create Deaflympics task force as a part of this. Abishe (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

2020 Winter Youth Olympics

Hi, two hints for the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics:

  1. User:MB-one created from the official YOG2020 website items on Wikidata for all participating athletes.
  2. Over the next days and weeks there will come a lot of images uploaded to Commons. We covered all sports at least at one event, mostly more than once, except Speed skating. -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, this discussion. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Long leads in Country at the Olympic Games articles.

I notice that some of some of the Country at the Olympic Games' leads could be too long. Should a "Background" section be standard for these kind of articles? See Great Britain at the 2016 Summer Olympics for exampleHariboneagle927 (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Should there be a proposal set up ? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Not sure a proposal is needed; I think all of the Country at the Olympic Games articles I have taken to GA or reviewed at GAN have a background section (just checked three to be sure). As the articles develop and are reviewed I think it becomes standard. Feel free to make a proposal if you think it is needed of course, just wanted to share my thoughts on it. Kees08 (Talk) 07:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Categorization of 1906 Intercalated Games

We know 1906 Intercalated Games medals are not officially recognized by the IOC today, nevertheless many wikipedia biographies of medal winners of these games are categorized under Category:Olympic medalists. I was asking myself if there's agreement on this categorization in the community. thanks --Luckyz (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I would be surprised if there was not agreement. The 1906 Games were considered at the time to be a full and complete Olympic Games on par with any others. It was only much later that the IOC declined to recognize them as such. Olympic historians such as Bill Mallon regard these Games as having saved the Olympic movement, after the disastrous experiences of having World Fairs completely overshadow the Games in 1900 and 1904. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Incoherence in the categorization of unified teams

Dear all, I'm wondering why there's an incoherence in the categorization of unified teams on wikipedia. Athletes representing the Mixed team in 1896, 1900, 1904 are categorized under the single country of citizenship (e.g. Keene, MacKey). Differently, athletes representing the Unified Team in 1992 Summer Olympics are not categorized under their country of citizenship but under the category Category:Olympic medalists for the Unified Team. --Luckyz (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a substantive difference between the early "mixed team" athletes and the post-Soviet "Unified Team." "Mixed team" was not a nation for the Olympics; the "mixed team" competitors were at the Games representing their individual countries. The rules at the time allowed team sports (including, e.g., doubles tennis) to have teams consisting of people from different countries. So, for example, Laurence Doherty and Marion Jones Farquhar each represented their own countries (Great Britain and the United States, respectively) in their respective singles competitions, but when they played together in the doubles, they were a mixed team. For the Unified Team, on the other hand, competitors were at the Games representing the Unified Team, which was treated as one "country" for the 1992 Games. Those players were Unified Team players even in individual events. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 10:35, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Medal table

Hi! Why can't the English Wikipedia have a ranked medal table that is way more understandable than the current chaotic one. Take the German Wikipedia, as an example. Besides making a ranked table, they also combined the results of RUS/URS, FRG/GER and TCH/CZE, something that makes sense given that there is a clear continuity between the countries. By the way, the Olympic Channel (general overview page, example Calgary 1988, example Seoul 1988) that is currently administered by the IOC started combining results of Russia and the Soviet Union. Would like to hear your thoughts about that. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofenix (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The Olympic Channel lists "Russia" as the nation in Seoul 1988, which, uh, would be a surprise to the non-Russian Soviet athletes. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 15:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
To answer the original question, we do it differently because we do it differently. Every language wiki has its own style and standards. If you have a suggestion for improvement I'm sure we can discuss it here. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Logo in medal template

May i know if there any rules that talks about logo in the medal templates? Can it be used or not? (See: Saina Nehwal and P. V. Sindhu) Stvbastian (talk) 06:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

As long as the logo is freely available, then there should be no issue. Some logos, like those for FINA, are only allowed under fair use and should not be used in medal templates. Primefac (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Team sports format - templates vs sections

Most of the Olympics team sports event pages use a slew of templates to maintain consistency between the main event page, the men's/women's tournament pages, the team roster page, and the nation pages. See, for example, the Field hockey at the 2016 Summer Olympics pages (especially the men's tournament and women's tournament pages). Each group standings, each game, each team roster is a separate template, transcluded onto however many pages necessary. To give an idea of how many templates are used, there is a navbox for the templates (Template:2016 Summer Olympics field hockey convenience template navbox). These types of templates are used pretty consistently for Summer Games 2004 to 2016 and Winter Games 2010 to 2018; I've started to use them for earlier Games that I have been working on; and some have started to be made for the upcoming 2020 Games.

Elsewhere, however, it seems there is growing use of a section-transclusion method instead of templates. See, for example, the Field hockey at the 2018 Asian Games pages (especially the men's tournament and women's tournament pages). Instead of a template, the individual games are marked as sections within the men's/women's tournament page, and those sections are transcluded onto the nation pages etc. Same for the rosters from the men's and women's roster pages. There is still a navbox at the moment (Template:2018 Asian Games field hockey convenience template navbox), which only has links for rosters (which are red links that would never be blue) and standings (which are currently blue as the standings are still templates, but which could probably also be converted to sections and thus the navbox would be eliminated entirely).

I would like to get people's views on which method would be preferred. As far as I can tell, the difference is nearly entirely behind the scenes and not visible to a reader--the only difference is that the template method shows links to the templates where the section method would not have those links. I am inclined to think that the section method is simpler and more convenient, and would prefer to use it for new pages and ultimately convert the templates into sections for existing pages. Thoughts? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 11:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Quicker and reduces the amount of templates. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Just as a note, with no opposition (or other comments) I'm going to see about modifying the 2020 templates this weekend. At the moment there are only three main groups of convenience templates so it should be the easiest to convert en-masse. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hubert Lefèbvre

Notice

The article Hubert Lefèbvre has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecrafter0271 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how you can prod a "BLP" that's probably been dead for half a century! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, so now we're just going to assume someone born in 1878 is dead? And not walking around at 141 years old? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 17:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Okay. There is no reliable source that says he's dead. He probably is, but if you can show me a reliable source that he his dead, then I would love to see it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Haha, I had a good belly laugh when I saw that BLP Prod. User:Minecrafter0271, I've had secret sources tell me that reliable sources will be found when you become a graduate of the University of Common Sense. Schwede66 06:00, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I know he's most likely dead, but there aren't reliable sources that say he's dead. Therefore, he should be subject to WP:BLP. Wikipedia doesn't exist to prove things right or wrong, nor are editors supposed to substitute reliable sources for personal belief. Cheers! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, Minecrafter0271 has been banned indefinitely. Schwede66 19:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Olympic links at Sports Reference closing update

Hello. Sports Reference announced that they will be removing their Olympic links by March 1 2020. As this will effect a lot of articles, I thought I'd let you all know. I also hope the IOC and OlyMADMen work out a site to replace these stats per this post. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Rats! I just noticed the update to the update (it had been there so long, I'd been ignoring it). I'm guessing this is the worst-case scenario of someone pulling the plug on SR, so all the links become dead... :( Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Actually, the site will be still there, but the Olympic parts will be gone. But yeah, hopefuly a new site will replace the links. I'll rename the section to prevent confusion. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
This post is important as well. I think that the athletes database at www.olympicchannel.com (see Olympic Channel) is the replacement. Sadly, it is much less detailed than the SR/oly site, and since it has a much broader audience I fear that it will never reach that nerdy level of detail that SR/oly has. I hope that they either improve it a lot, or make www.olympedia.org publicly available instead.
I know of another Wikipedian who is in contact with Bill Mallon, in order to obtain a mapping table of SR URLs to new Olympic Channel URLs. Not sure whether the OlyMadMen can provide such a table, but at least they are willing to help according to the blog post; if they send a high quality mapping table, it would be easy to add all the new Olympic Channel URLs to Wikidata, and to automatically pull or manually import them from there to Wikipedia as well. —MisterSynergy (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi everyone; that's the old version of the Olympic Channel (at least in terms of the athlete data) linked above. The new version will have as much (if not more) detail than Sports Reference and will even maintain information for things like the 1906 Intercalated Games, which are not officially Olympic. The only issue of concern is that we're not sure when the OlyMADMen based version will be available, and it indeed may be after the closing date of Olympics at Sports Reference, which will leave a temporary gap in reference (aside from archive sites of course). As for the technical matters, I believe that they are working on a way so that the transition of links on Wikipedia will be doable as suggested above, but I don't know too many details about that off the top of my head. Canadian Paul 21:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates, all. Fingers crossed for a smooth transition. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Any update on this? Can someone prompt web.archive.org to do a final sweep, and then adjust {{Sports reference}} to automatically go to the archived link? The-Pope (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Generic notability

Hi, I've been browsing some of our short stubs on Olympians and I'm finding a lot which have barely a mention on a database for once participating in an Olympics. Couldn't expand them. Do we really need separate articles on every Olympian whoever competed in an Olympics even if we can't write articles about them? If they only competed in one event in one olympics and no other sources exist, wouldn't it be best redirecting into a list of Olympic competitors by Olympics?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:47, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If no sources exist, then an article cannot be written about them and I would agree on redirecting. If that happened though, Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Olympic and Paralympic Games would be cited, specifically Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924), or have won a medal at the Paralympic Games; e.g., Ian Thorpe or Laurentia Tan. The counter argument to that argument is that presumed notable presumes that sources exist, if they do not exist IMO the article should be redirected. Kees08 (Talk) 17:19, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm with Kees08 on this one, especially regarding "presumed" - most people use the SNGs like they're magic bullets, but they only say a subject might be notable if they meet the criteria. I would 100% support redirecting a permanent sub-stub to a related article. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I've gotten burned by this concept before. If you are talking about an American or British athlete and can't find sources, that would be one issue. If you are talking about an athlete from a more obscure country, you need to make sure you are seeing most available sources from that country. Many countries' media sources are not as easily available in western search engines. Many media in less sophisticated countries presents itself as Facebook or other non-reliable LOOKING media simply because that is the technology level they have found to be most successful in that country. Before you deny that sources exist, know your territory. Frankly, I like having the stub articles. As I research through history and add content as I find sources, it is nice to have a place to hang each new piece of information. example When the destination for my new information doesn't exist, I have no place to put it and my potential additions die. I'm not the only one adding content to obscure Olympic athletes. The assumption of inclusion is based on the general fact that anyone selected to represent their country in the Olympics will have an athletic history to document their path to the selection (or even more interesting, there is a corrupt path behind their selection). Far too often, challenged wikipedia editors seem to get lizard arms when reaching out for sources. Then they categorically claim there are no sources. They lie. When I get involved, in most such cases, I find sources THEY DIDN'T. I can't go searching for all these, at best, incompetent or more likely, malicious editors. I can't protect hundreds of thousands of articles. Assuming notability and maintaining content is the only solution. Trackinfo (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Trackinfo. We should not be afraid of stubs, though I would like to see examples of articles that would become redirects with this proposal. Pelmeen10 (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily a fear of stubs, but of an article that tells next to nothing about an athlete. The best examples (which are deleted now) were the thousands of substubs created by Sander.v.Ginkel and later deleted; while the main reason was copyright issues, another reason was that they were hundreds of pages with literally nothing more than "X participated in Y Olympics. They placed Z in the Games" and a corresponding infobox. If a stub has anything more than that, then by all means keep it as a stub. Obviously I don't know which articles Dr. Blofeld is referring to, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were bunch more like that floating around that could probably be redirected until more information is available.
Either way, in the hierarchy of "good things to have on Wikipedia" I'd say a redirect is better than nothing. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Every now and again, there seems to be some sort of moral panic on WP about a stub on someone who competed in one event at the Olympics in the pre-internet years (IE before 1996). A lot of time is wasted at AfD, and sometimes DRV, which ultimately ends in said stub being kept. Now if you create a one-liner about a tiny village in Poland or a moth that was once seen in in the 1960s in Kenya, then that's fine. Not even worthy of a listing at AfD. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, a lot of time is wasted on AFDs on article topics which can really be expanded. They simply don't bother to check and improve content themselves. A lot of Olympian stubs can certainly be fleshed out when there's multiple performances or another website which displays games and placements outside of the Olympics etc. But there's a lot of older Olympic bios where there is literally nothing more online than a single database stating that they competed in one event in one olympics, even US or British. My feeling is that in those cases we'd be better off having a list of Olympians by sport and olympics and redirecting them. Exactly Primefac it's not a fear of stubs, I think creating them is a positive thing if they can easily be expanded by anybody. But it's when you google search them and find literally nothing except the database mentioning one event in one olympics, I don't think they should have separate biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugo Maiocco has some data on that site though, a few different years you can use to waffle a bit and flesh it out. I'm talking about Olympians who are only documented for a single performance at one Games and there literally be nothing more than xx competed in the xx games in xxx and finished xxx, the same info you get from an article on the event listing the final standings..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

On a plus note, it still impresses me when I create a stub on Johnny Olympian, who finished 83rd in one event 60 years ago, and someone comes along and expands the article. Even with just an extra line citing something else. Gold medals all round! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Costa Rica 2020 olympics messup

Hey everybody. Does somebody have abilities to reset articles to a former variant? My friend messed up my page about Costa Rica at the 2020 olympics, and i need to reset it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrilleL (talk • contribs) 10:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

ChrilleL, please tell your friend to stop editing using your account; Wikipedia does not allow sharing of accounts. Primefac (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2020 (UTC) and for the record, I've fixed the article

Tokyo 2020 page move

Incase you've not seen it already, please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Update required

A considerable update is required to the articles that deal with the events that are scheduled to take place at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Almost all of the them still claim that events will take place at some point during July or August 2020. The games and even a considerable of the qualifying tournaments have been postponed. Thus the dates and competition schedules should be removed and the general language should be changed to be less ascertaining of the future. I.e. the usage of will, claiming a certain future fact, should be replaced by language that is more appropriate to designate scheduled/planned events which can always be subjected to changes.Tvx1 16:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

List of flag bearers for [Country] at the Olympics

I merged List of flag bearers for Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics into Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics in 2017. An IP user has been recreating the page today. I don't think the list length or the article length necessitate the separate list page, but wanted to ask here in case there has been previous discussion. Kees08 (Talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Dates

Hello. Can someone please find the starting & ending dates for Swimming at the 1972 Summer Olympics. I'm trying to tidy up pages for Olympic Swimming from past years, and would love some assistance. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Sports Reference has it all. Here, for example, is the link for Men's 100 metres Freestyle Round One. I suggest you add the dates to each individual swimming event and then you'll be able to see the max date range. Schwede66 21:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Yep, though SR actually has an overall swimming page with the full date range, too. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 16:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Olympian at AfD

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And another one. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fram: I think the database issue needs to be discussed here and we come to a consensus on what to do with one off one source Olympians. If we had  List of competitors at the 1928 Summer Olympics by event and Olympics, I think we could probably redirect the ones which have no info and expand the ones that do. Olympians are notable, but we also want to write proper biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:01, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can't find enough sources and information to write even 250 bytes of readable prose for an article and write anything more than that they competed in one event I don't think we should be creating them. In the Destubathon contest I'm running if the editors can't even expand it beyond 500 bytes I encourage them to redirect them in cases where it is best to merge to avoid very short articles existing. There is absolutely no reason why all of the older one off Olympians which currently can't be expanded like Bertheloot can't be merged into a list of Olympians by Olympics. There's hundreds of similar stubs which could present the same information in a list and stop misleading readers to clicking on the blue links only to find empty biographies.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with Dr. Blofeld's entire premise that a stub article is a bad thing. We report what we know about that athlete now, maybe it is only their name, birthdate and the event the competed in, most of that is readily available at sports-reference as long as it exists. The part the Dr. fails to recognize is wikipedia is a constantly updated research document. As new information is found, the existence of a stub article gives us a place to hang that information. Suddenly a nothing burger can get an addition. I have personally been adding templates of USA Indoor Champions over the last month. Obscure names pop up because, as the notability standard assumes, there is additional athletic background to athletes who get selected to an Olympic team. Creating a list dumping ground makes that more difficult. It requires more action of the adding editor later on. Frankly, when I am in a sequence of those kinds of repetitive things, I don't want to stop down to build an article that my new information has made necessary at that time. At best, your list concept puts the onus on the subsequent editor, rather than recognizing a need for an article on the first indication. Actually you create ambiguity that will confuse later editors. Should I create an article now? How about now? Create the article, stub or not, when you have enough reason to create it. Solve formatting and disambiguation issues at the inception. Place-hold against future controversies, place it in sorting group articles (surnames, team names etc). And generally, get off your high horse to find new excuses to delete content. Trackinfo (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Case in point: from "useless stub" (as some may argue) to something decent. I wouldn't have written the bio if there had not been a stub already. Schwede66 00:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It's not an argument against creating stubs. It's an argument against creating stubs with no content when potential sources don't exist online which can be used to expand them so they are rendered one liners for ten years if not forever..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Aarne Kainlauri Here's another example. I just noticed the guy died. I looked at the supporting references and was able to add several sentences to what was a poor mention of his Olympic participation. Face it, some editors do a poor job of presenting what is already in sources and the articles sit unattended. That is no cause for deletion. You cannot possibly know what sources exist out there. When new sources are revealed, or even when one editor chooses to look at an article and improve it, you can't set a time limit, you can't define that a volunteer will never step in. We publish what we know within the limitations of the capabilities of the editor who posted it. If the subject meets Notability standards, keep it. If people would spend half the effort they wasted trying to delete content and instead use that time to improve content, wikipedia would be a whole lot better for it. Trackinfo (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Articles get deleted on here all of the time based on lack of web hits and coverage in reliable sources. A good number of them undoubtedly have more sources offline. Ideally I'd like to see at least a start class article on every Olympian ever, believe me. If articles were created like Aarne Kainlauri with more than one fact, something which at least half resembles a biography even if very short makes the world of a difference.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:2020 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes

Hi, all,

I was just wondering if these pages should either be a) tagged for deletion or b) converted to 2021 Summer Olympics. Liz Read! Talk! 15:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No, because (at the moment) the games are still being marketed and labelled (per the IOC) as the "2020 Olympics". There is a move discussion (linked a few threads above) which is considering the same issue, so I suppose if that passes then they would be converted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

EventLink template

FYI – I have created an {{EventLink}} template which simplifies the creation of event-level links in medal table on games pages (e.g. Archery at the 2016 Summer Olympics). This should simplify input and remove the need for the more verbose {{DetailsLink}} template in many cases (example). Let me know if any issues are found and I will review the code. SFB 10:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Jack Henn

According to this reference [9] and according to United States at the 1968 Summer Olympics Henn played at the Olympics. But not according to sports—reference. What is the answer? SportsOlympic (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

SR does have him as playing, just under the name John Henn: SR. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 01:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@User:Jonel: Thanks!! Makes it clear :) SportsOlympic (talk) 07:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox National Olympic Committee

Due to the fact that this template requires one of a few set names for the continental associations, it appears to be impossible to cite a source for this. This issue is currently raised at this GAN. Username6892 02:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Anything that is in an infobox should (in theory) already be sourced in the article. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Popularity of Olympic sports

Hello. In numerous articles there are the tables of the Popularity of Olympic sports:

Does anybody have a new source for this categories? Because they are from 2013 after the London Olympic Games.

In my view they are out of date, because for example after the 2012 games handball was moved from cat. C to D (Handball is not popular in UK so there were not many spectators). In 2016 it had the second most attendance, so I think in a new list Handball would by again in cat. C or even in B.

In my view the lists should be updated or marked clear that they are out of date. Because here is written The current categories are:. --Malo95 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

New AFC article U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Museum

Just wanted to get a few more eyes on this new article, since it could use some updating (given it's not opening in April 2020, clearly). MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge

Hi, recently created Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/The 1000 Destubbing Challenge. If at least five people are interested in creating a similar one for Olympic-related articles I'll create one! Aiming to see 1000 stubs expanded as part of it.† Encyclopædius 12:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a good idea. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Count me in! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Sound good! Games of the world (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I’d contribute a bit! Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sports Reference is no more

The site was switched off a few hours ago. I think we should all have a minutes silence! What happens now with all the refs on WP, including the Template:Cite sports-reference? Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Find a way to autoredirect it to web.archive.org? The-Pope (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that would help. The good news is that the data is now at Olympedia, run by the same team. The same SportsRef ID is used at the new site. For example, Mark Zembsch has ID 40944 on SR (via web archive) and at Olympedia. Hopefully that's a starting point for a bot. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
As much as I am aware, they still want to switch over to www.olympicchannel.com (IOC-managed site) in the long run. Unfortunately, the new site is still far away from the old Sports-Reference.com standard. A couple of weeks ago, I did however receive complete mapping tables from SR-URLs to Olympedia-IDs and from OlympicChannel-URLs to Olympedia-IDs from the responsible members of Olympedia and OlympicChannelServices. As the transition is not yet completed on their side, I have not yet imported them to Wikidata (or elsewhere). --MisterSynergy (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow, that would be amazing to have all that. Didn't think about Wikidata until you mentioned it. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Olympedia requires me to "to sign in or sign up before continuing" but I cannot find anywhere on the website to sign up. Help? -- Jonel (Speak to me) 12:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You should be able to view athlete profiles without signing in (does this work?), but you need to sign in to see overviews of events, etc. I'm not sure how you do that though - I was contacted directly from one of the site's team. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I can get to athlete profiles (the Zembsch link above works, as did the Phelps one here, and just typing in a profile ID--so I just learned that Mariel Zagunis's parents were both Olympic rowers), but seems like nothing else. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh no! Does that mean no more one liners on one off Olympians then?? :-) † Encyclopædius 10:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hehe, mercy! Just the headache of moving/fixing links. Gold medals waiting for those who help. Subject to the findings of any drug tests. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 11:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
SR was more helpful than pretty much anywhere else in filling out detail on low-online-information Olympians. Simple participation can almost always be cited to the Official Reports or to Bill Mallon's books. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just to say, on behalf of the Olympedia team, we are still working to help transfer the links from sports-reference to Olympedia. Topcardi (talk) 11:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent and ongoing work. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I understand Lugnuts found the athletes' profiles using the old SR ID. But the search for an athlete still can't be done because of this "sign in" thing. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I point out that now the link to SR, imported from Wikidata (for example with {{sports links}}) links to the Web Archive. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Access to Olympedia

As several editors have pointed out - they can't create an account to get the full access of the site. Is anyone here able to help with this matter? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I established an account there six and a half years ago by sending an email to Dr. Bill Mallon and asking for an account to be set up for me. Jeff in CA (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Olympedia should be available to the general public within a few weeks without need for an account. We're just waiting for permission to do this Topcardi (talk) 21:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Will Olympedia be publicly accessible permanently, or is it only a temporary measure to bridge the time until the IOC database is finally ready? —MisterSynergy (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Temporary measure we believe, but we're not sure how long "temporary" will be. Topcardi (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Looks like the full site is open to all, without the need to login. Please can someone who didn't have an account test this by clicking on a link to an athlete, and then seeing if they can access the event results? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
I can freely navigate. Schwede66 17:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Superb. Thanks Schwede66. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
https://olympstats.com/2020/05/27/olympedia-now-open-to-the-public/ An explanation Topcardi (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Topcardi. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Cooke brothers

If anyone with access can provide Olympedia links for George Edwin Cooke and Thomas Cooke (soccer), that would be helpful. The former is at AfD and SR was one of the main sources. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:43, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jonel: done for both of them. Note that changing "cite web" to "cite sports-reference" (as per this edit) automatically makes a link to web archive, which can then be accessed. I'm about to make a WP:BOTREQ to fix this across the site. If you have any other bios that need the Olympedia link, esp. anyone at AfD, just drop me a note (either here or on my talkpage). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll remember that on the citation template, that's handy. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 13:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jonel: No problem. Just thought that if you do the "cite sports-reference" first, then you can see the Sports Ref ID towards the foot of the person's page. That is the same number that is used on Olympedia. IE 27714 for George Cooke. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot request

Please see this thread for a request to fix the dead links. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have been working on this for months. See WP:URLREQ. There are a lot of complications with this. Please do not switch from cite web, this will create link rot not every link is available on Internet Archive, they might be at archive.today and elsewhere, or none at all. It requires a bot to verify and add individual archive URLs. -- GreenC 14:47, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, but there's already linkrot! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
As of a couple days ago yes. There are 100s of thousands of links this is a massive project with a ton of complications. If you could follow up at URLREQ I don't monitor this page. -- GreenC 17:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts, I've started the conversion (diff). This is mainly to add archive URLs. It will take a few days to process around 120k articles. After the new site re-opens under a new domain, it will require another pass to move the URLs, unwind the archive URLs and change the free-form text associating the cites with "Sports Reference" to whatever the new site is called. Stay in touch when it happens, bot tools are available, you can ping here or post at WP:URLREQ. -- GreenC 14:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Olympedia and Wikidata

Hi. Now that Olympedia is live and open to the public (see the above thread), there's a disucssion about using the Olympedia ID on Wikidata, to replace the now defunct Sports Ref ID. Please see discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The link is broken. Try this discussion (without the pipe in the link). --David Biddulph (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
D'oh! So use to linking to on-wiki discussions. Thanks David. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

British West Indies at the 1960 Summer Olympics

Hi. I'm not sure where the infobox data for each country is stored, but please can someone take a look at the British West Indies at the 1960 Summer Olympics article and de-link all the red links for the years? Compare with Jamaica at the 1964 Summer Olympics, for example, which has the 1960 year greyed out, rather than a redlink. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference (for anyone reading this) if there are issues with country years not showing up right like in this case (too many redlinks) drop a note at Template talk:Team appearances list. If the name itself isn't showing properly, then it's likely an issue with Template:Country alias. Primefac (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Hello,
Please note that Anna Holmlund, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 8 June 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Double external links from Wikidata if you use {{sports links}}

As you may know after the definitive closure of Sports Reference and the related transfer of data to Olympedia, which has recently opened to the public, the old links to SR are now all working with Olympedia. Only the small bug that I explain in the title remains, we now ahave two lins: the old one to SR (archive) and the new one to Olympedia. The Wikidata project suggested that I go here to find a solution. Can you help me out? --Kasper2006 (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

2026 Summer Youth Olympics

There is a severe mess in 2026 Summer Youth Olympics which was produced by a cut and paste move from 2022 Summer Youth Olympics so the history and attribution have been lost. Furthermore the 2026 article is grossly in error because of this global replacement of 2022 by 2026, which is wrong in most places. Many of the references are broken, and those that work don't say what the article claims they say. Needs a substantial clean up, sorting out the history and the content. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The same problem applies to 2030 Summer Youth Olympics and other associated articles where again global changes were made which included falsification of references. All the recent changes by that editor need looking at and straightening out. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

The 2030 Summer Youth Olympics is fine. The only issue I have is about the bid of Bangkok and Chonburi. I'm not sure that we can automatically assume that they are going to bid for 2030 YOG. Regarding the 2026 Summer Youth Olympics I prefer to wait until the history merge accrued and then fixing it. If there isn't a way to merge the history, I think it will better be to delete the 2026 article and move the 2022 article. Nimrodbr (talk) 08:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

1900 Summer Olympics

I just saw now this Franzen (cyclist) AfD. Many articles are deleted as people think no more information will ever be found of these cyclists. I did a quick search an saw that there are many images of the 1900 Olympics that are not on Commons. As these 1900 Olympics images don't have copyright anymore these images are probably "new" at the Olympic.org website(?). Or nobody has ever uploaded them. 6 examples of very nice images to have (I can list more if appriciated):

I think having more images from the old Olymics is very important, as the images depicting information we don't have? SportsOlympic (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Go for it. Uploading those images to Commons would be great! Schwede66 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Started with uploading. Uploaded 20 images of the 1896 and 1900 Olympics. Will try to get this number to the 100 in the coming weeks. SportsOlympic (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:OLYMPICS

A deletion review is taking place about cyclists meeting WP:OLYMPICS and WP:CYCLING. To take part in this discussion see: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 20. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations

Hey projecteers. A quickie about the 2020 Summer Olympics Parade of Nations article. I've been an on/off observer of this article for some time and another editor in the talk page briefly mentioned my main concern: namely, the article is possibly a complete shambles. The prose is written in a peculiar mix of pre- and post- event tenses, as though the text has been copy+pasted from a previous Parade of Nations; the inclusion of the Refugee team is without any confirmation or citation, and overall it looks very much like a patch of weeds rather than a neat garden, if that makes sense.

Can someone with a bit more idea/knowledge take a look please? I'd almost recommend redirecting the article to the mainspace Olympics article until nearer the time. Any help would be gratefully received! doktorb wordsdeeds 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Just as one quick note, the Refugee Team is specifically mentioned in Ref #1. Other than some tense issues nothing immediately problematic is jumping out at me. Primefac (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

RM discussion at Chris Mullin

All - There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chris Mullin#Requested move 22 August 2020. Please feel free to join in if you are so inclined. Rikster2 (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject top icon

In case anyone's interested, I made a top icon for this WikiProject; you can add it to your userpage with {{WikiProject Olympics topicon}}. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Would strongly recommend using File:OlympicsWP logo.svg instead of the rings. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 09:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Yep that would make sense, it has changed now. Allthegoldmedals (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Olympics/Archive_17&oldid=1073229283"