Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification

I have a major concern on this article. @CLalgo: puts a complete content on the article prematurely and the list is still UNCONFIRMED since the names of the judokas in each table keep on changing over time until the qualification period. I have also noticed that the tables have a solid border on the left in which they are entirely different from the other qualification articles containing the overall summary of athletes competing in Paris 2024 and previous editions. According to this user, the article must be entirely complete with details. Any thoughts from the users? What can we do to make the list official when the deadline happens? Raymarcbadz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The tables at the above mentioned articles shows the state of the Olympic qualification races, corrected to the date mentioned in the article itself and the attached citations. It is inline with WP:V, allowing for easy verification. The "solid border" is used to ease reading of tables, like those with many columns, for example. I do not understand you objection for displaying official, verifiable information in the article. CLalgo (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Your tables ae clunky and include references which are not needed in a table, especially since the information is listed in the article. The Standardized version is much better IMO. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Just my own 2 cents, fwiw. I don't find CLalgo's table clunky at all. In fact, I think I prefer the aesthetics of CLalgo's version, even with the refs, needed or not. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with the standardized version though. DB1729^talk 19:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the only way to fix the tables is to clean the code or make them standardized. We have already done this format in the previous editions. The real question is: Why now? Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As of the writing of this comment, every Judo at the YEAR Summer Olympics – Qualification article uses a different table format at the Qualification summary section. Please, check for yourself. It is even a bit presumptuous labeling your version as the "Standardized version" when none of the previous editions used that exact format. The version I've created for the 2024 edition is an improvement upon the 2020 format, with even more citations (that will be all archived in future updates) and clearer segment separation. Moreover, please note that even as the format I've used has one more column than the one you've used, mine is 17% narrower. CLalgo (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DB1729. Clalgo's version is better for readability. Both the narrower table and solid border between men and women makes it easier to read. Changes and updates to format styles are quite normal and everything should not stay the same just for the reason "we have always done it this way". I support some parts of it becoming the new "standardized version". Not so sure about the bottom ref row, could those refs go some other place? For example next to the sortable button uptop? Not sure if refs are needed at all in the table, but surely all Wikipedia content needs to be sourced and sourcing wikitables is quite recent (positive) practice. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pelmeen10: The ref row can be placed at any place there'll be consensus for. I've tried making the table as readable as I could and glad you've found it so. I try, per WP:V, tot use as much citations as possible. As the table (and in fact, the article) is autogenerated, I've cited the relevant source for each weight class at every mention of it. I've placed the refs on bottom, thinking it will be like placing an inline citation at the end of a sentence. CLalgo (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If you prefer this version, should you apply it to other qualification articles? The code needs to be clean and not cumbersome. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I could. It doesn't mean it has to be done by me or by anyone else on any time table, as Wikipedia is a work in progress. Please explain what you mean by "The code needs to be clean and not cumbersome." and why it should be so. CLalgo (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The table doesn't need references. IMO your table version without the references is the best way to proceed here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Same with me IMO. For the table designed by CLalgo, it needs more improvement on the structure and the inline code, particularly on the solid border lines. If we prefer his version, this would be the FINAL. Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sportsfan 1234: The WP:V policy states that All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material.. Why should citations be removed from the table? Please, point me to a relevant, contradicting policy. CLalgo (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raymarcbadz: You've written "it needs more improvement on the structure and the inline code, particularly on the solid border lines.". Do you have any specific suggestion on how to get the same result with a simpler code? In any case, I suggest taking a look at {{Wikipedia technical help}} where you can find a lot of How-to guides that will help you understand coding in Wikipedia. Specifically, H:TABLE may be of great use. CLalgo (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm currently working on the code. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please, just remember to present your new format in the talk page before editing it into the article. CLalgo (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've edited the article. Its format stayed as in Bbb23's last edit, but the information was updated and some section links were added. Thought the edit should be mentioned here while the discussion is open. CLalgo (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I also prefer CLalgo's version, especially seeing the version below. I'm sure it could be implemented at other Judo Olympic articles where qualification followed the same process. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I will show the comparisons between my edits and those edited by CLalgo, which we have never seen this from the past editions.

CLalgo's version

NOC	Men							Women							Mixed	Total	Ref.
	60 kg	66 kg	73 kg	81 kg	90 kg	100 kg	+100 kg	48 kg	52 kg	57 kg	63 kg	70 kg	78 kg	+78 kg	Team
Algeria																1
Angola																1
Argentina																3
Australia																3
Austria																3
Azerbaijan																7
Burundi																1
Belgium																7
Bosnia and Herzegovina																1
Botswana																1
Brazil																10
Bahrain																3
Bulgaria																2
Burkina Faso																1
Central African Republic																1
Canada																6
Chile																2
China																5
Ivory Coast																1
Cameroon																1
Colombia																1
Cape Verde																1
Costa Rica																1
Croatia																4
Cuba																8
Cyprus																1
Czech Republic																6
Denmark																1
Dominican Republic																2
Ecuador																1
Egypt																1
Spain																9
Estonia																1
Fiji																1
Finland																2
France																14
Gabon																1
The Gambia																1
Great Britain																10
Georgia																9
Germany																9
Greece																2
Guinea																1
Guam																1
Haiti																1
Hong Kong																1
Hungary																5
Indonesia																1
India																1
Ireland																1
Israel																11
Italy																13
Jamaica																1
Japan																14
Kazakhstan																10
Kyrgyzstan																2
South Korea																9
Kosovo																3
Saudi Arabia																1
Lebanon																1
Morocco																2
Moldova																2
Mexico																2
Mongolia																11
Mauritius																1
Netherlands																10
Niger																1
New Zealand																3
Panama																1
Paraguay																1
Peru																1
Philippines																1
Poland																4
Portugal																6
Puerto Rico																1
Romania																2
South Africa																1
Russia																7
Senegal																1
Slovenia																6
Serbia																7
Switzerland																3
Slovakia																2
Sweden																1
Tajikistan																4
Turkmenistan																1
Chinese Taipei																2
Tunisia																1
Turkey																8
United Arab Emirates																3
Uganda																1
Ukraine																6
Uruguay																1
United States																3
Uzbekistan																10
Venezuela																3
Vietnam																1
Zambia																1
Total: 98	21	25	24	26	23	28	24	24	25	29	27	25	21	23	16	361
References

Standardized version

As of November 14, 2022

NOC	Men							Women							Mixed	Total
	60 kg	66 kg	73 kg	81 kg	90 kg	100 kg	+100 kg	48 kg	52 kg	57 kg	63 kg	70 kg	78 kg	+78 kg	Team
	Algeria																1
Angola																1
Argentina																3
Australia																3
Austria																3
Azerbaijan																7
Bahrain																3
Belgium																7
Bosnia and Herzegovina																1
Botswana																1
Brazil																10
Bulgaria																2
Burkina Faso																1
Burundi																1
Cameroon																1
Canada																6
Cape Verde																1
Central African Republic																1
Chile																2
China																5
Colombia																1
Costa Rica																1
Croatia																4
Cuba																8
Cyprus																1
Czech Republic																6
Denmark																1
Dominican Republic																2
Ecuador																1
Egypt																1
Estonia																1
Fiji																1
Finland																2
France																14
Gabon																1
The Gambia																1
Georgia																9
Germany																9
Great Britain																10
Greece																2
Guam																1
Guinea																1
Haiti																1
Hong Kong																1
Hungary																5
Independent Olympic Athletes																7
India																1
Indonesia																1
Ireland																1
Israel																11
Italy																13
Ivory Coast																1
Jamaica																1
Japan																14
Kazakhstan																10
Kyrgyzstan																2
Kosovo																3
Lebanon																1
Mauritius																1
Mexico																2
Moldova																2
Mongolia																11
Morocco																2
Netherlands																10
New Zealand																3
Niger																1
Panama																1
Paraguay																1
Peru																1
Philippines																1
Poland																4
Portugal																6
Puerto Rico																1
Romania																2
Saudi Arabia																1
Senegal																1
Serbia																7
Slovenia																6
Slovakia																2
South Africa																1
South Korea																9
Spain																9
Switzerland																3
Sweden																1
Chinese Taipei																2
Tajikistan																4
Turkmenistan																1
Tunisia																1
Turkey																8
Uganda																1
Ukraine																6
United Arab Emirates																3
United States																3
Uruguay																1
Uzbekistan																10
Venezuela																3
Vietnam																1
Zambia																1
Total: 98 NOC's	21	25	24	26	23	28	24	24	25	29	27	25	21	23	16	361

Sources

Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification — Suggested new format

Hello everyone, I have prepared a cleaner code of the qualification summary table in judo. Do you have any suggestions or thoughts about this version? Thank you!

Sample

{| class="wikitable olympic-summary sortable" id="judoNOC" 
{{Olympic judo qualification summary top}}
|-
{{JudoNOC|nation=AUT|year=2024|accessdate=6 January 2023|timestamp=20230105153648|archivedate=5 January 2023|M81=Q|W48=Q|W70=Q}}
|-
! Total: {{table row counter|id=judoNOC}} NOCs
{{Olympic judo qualification summary end
| total-M60 = 23
| total-M66 = 24
| total-M73 = 27
| total-M81 = 28
| total-M90 = 23
| total-M100 = 29
| total-M100+ = 22
| total-W48 = 27
| total-W52 = 26
| total-W57 = 31
| total-W63 = 25
| total-W70 = 26
| total-W78 = 19
| total-W78+ = 22
| total-MT = 13
}}
|-
! References
{{Olympic judo qualification summary references|accessdate=5 January 2023}}
|}

Result

NOC	Men							Women							Mixed	Total	Ref
	60 kg	66 kg	73 kg	81 kg	90 kg	100 kg	+100 kg	48 kg	52 kg	57 kg	63 kg	70 kg	78 kg	+78 kg	Team
Austria																3
Total: 1 NOCs	23	24	27	28	23	29	22	27	26	31	25	26	19	22	13	352
References

References

Sources

Raymarcbadz (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raymarcbadz: I've restored the previous examples editors have commented on and separated this new suggestion to a new section. Pinging @Sportsfan 1234, DB1729, Pelmeen10, and Kingsif: who took part in the previous discussion. I suggest we keep this one in one place, as it was also opened at Talk:Judo at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Qualification § Table structure proposal. CLalgo (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I like it. I was curious if the table could be easily updated by someone who has never seen it before. I have test "updated" the table at my sandbox and it was straight forward. So no issues from me. DB1729^talk 12:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll summarize my comments from the other discussion:
As I see it, the newly suggested format uses the newly created {{JudoNOC}}, {{Olympic judo qualification summary top}}, {{Olympic judo qualification summary end}} & {{Olympic judo qualification summary references}} templates instead of editing the article itself. I do like JudoNOC, especially for NOCs with few qualifing judoka, but do have some major misgivings regarding the new format:

1. JudoNOC must support archived sources, which it currently doesn't.
2. Olympic judo qualification summary references has to support general archived sources, not just hard coded sources, to have a valid argument to exist. This idea is suggested in WP:NENAT and is commonly followed by WikiProject Sports.
3. My final misgiving won't be a valid argument, but I think it should be written anyway: So far, I have been the only one to update the article, including archvining and attaching relevant citations — all automatically with an already written code. That is, Raymarcbadz's argument in the other discussion that the new format will make it easier to update the article is not quite true, as it will forec me to some refactors which are currently unneeded. Again, I'm aware that this specific argument is invalid by nature.

My position is that even if we accept the move to a template-base format, the change can't happen before JudoNOC supports archived sources, Olympic judo qualification summary references is generalized and all 4 templates are well documented. When those thresholds are met I'll have not objective arguments no make against the suggested format, just the subjective one regarding the code refactoring it'll force me to make. CLalgo (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already updated the code and the template containing archival sources (timestamp for the archived url and the archived date). Feel free to share or suggest. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@Raymarcbadz: I really like how CLalgo's and yours look in read view, both are a good visual improvement over the current. I don't like some small things in either redesign, but both are minor complaints, not why I'm commenting today and I might voice a comment on those later. The main issue I have with your proposed code right now though is that the {{table row counter|id=judoNOC}} line is throwing a fostered content error. Since I haven't used TRC before, I'm not 100% sure how it's doing that, but I think it might be due to the "does not work with... tables contained in templates" stated at the top of Template:Table row counter. If this fostered content issue can be corrected, I'd have no major objections to either redesign that hasn't been voiced already. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR for Nastia Liukin

Nastia Liukin has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

GAR for Montreal

Montreal has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics
2. Ian Thorpe
3. Jim Thorpe

This had me intrigued: an article with "2012" in the title last reviewed between 2004 and 2007? But it is indeed true; it was promoted to FA in 2007. Schwede66 00:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential duplicate templates

This might be a dumb question, but does anyone see a need for us to have both {{Infobox Olympic games}} and {{Infobox games}}? They are nearly identical, and any differences should be fairly easy to port over. Primefac (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion over the design of {{Infobox Olympic games}} on its talk page, so if there is ever to be a merger of the two infoboxes, the consensus-driven design elements of that particular infobox will need to be implemented in the resulting merged infobox, too. — AFC Vixen 🦊 21:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kurt Angle

Kurt Angle has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athletics at the 2019 European Games – Men's 100 metres

Athletics at the 2019 European Games – Men's 100 metres is nominated for deletion. Any input appreciated. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Félix Sienra

Félix Sienra, who seems to have been the longest lived olympian ever, died on Jan. 30. I would greatly appreciate if someone could expand his article to the point that its high enough quality to be put in the RD section of the main page (WP:ITNC). In fact, if anyone can do it, I'll give them The Original Barnstar. I'm really busy currently so I'm not sure I'd be able to do it in time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Case used in wikitables

Hey! Any thought if "Did not advance", "Did not start", "Did not finish", "Did not qualify", "Qualified", "Disqualified", etc. in wikitables should be lowercase? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:1896 Summer Olympics#Requested move 9 February 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:1896 Summer Olympics#Requested move 9 February 2023 that should be of interest to members of this WikiProject. It has been proposed to move 1896 Summer Olympics to 1896 Olympics, as well as all the other Summer Olympics articles up to the 1920 page, on grounds that "Summer" is not required as a form of disambiguation for those games held prior to first Winter Olympics in 1924 (this is actually a re-nomination of a previous 2022 requested move discussion, which apprently did not generate a whole lot of interest from this WikiProject at the time, and therefore ended with no consensus). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on mass draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jessica Hardy

Jessica Hardy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:GNG assessment on Olympians

Hi everyone,

I've noticed that several Wikipedia users tagged the Olympians articles for deletion and they are subjected to failure on WP:GNG. If we have created thousands of articles about the Olympians on Wikipedia and they are filed for deletion because of this stiff standard, why do we need to publish them? Do we leave the articles blank if the next edition of the Games occurs and they are not notable? We have cited the results of the Olympians in their respective events, then they would suddenly be deleted and redirected. If they have established stiff criteria on general notability guidelines for Olympians, then most articles, especially mine, are perilous for deletion or redirection in the near future. What are the necessary and impactful conditions to preserve the Olympians' articles apart from WP:GNG? Raymarcbadz (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2008 Summer Olympics

2008 Summer Olympics has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Other opinions requested

While not directly in the purview of this Project, there is a discussion with a similar theme (medal counting) which could use more opinions. Please join in the discussion at Talk:FINA Water Polo World Cup § Serbia and Montenegro. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Leopoldo Saínz de la Maza#Requested move 22 April 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Leopoldo Saínz de la Maza#Requested move 22 April 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Olympic competitors from the Russian Empire

I found the Category:Olympic competitors from the Russian Empire half-filled with competitors that represented Russian Empire at the Olympics and moved some sailors there from the Russia-category (Russian Empire category had one or two sailors before if I remember correctly). Then I see Category:Olympic footballers from the Russian Empire was redirected to Category:Olympic footballers of Russia. Should there be an own category for competitors from the Russian Empire (article exist as mentioned in first line)? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

That probably depends if there are separate categories for ROC etc. appearances, and if there was discussion on the redirect. Kingsif (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

ROC as in Russian Olympic Committe? Four different categories with the word Russia exist in Category:Olympic competitors by country: RUS, OAR, ROC and Russian Empire. OAR and ROC have only a medallist category. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I can see why Russian Olympic Committee and Independent athletes from Russia don't have athlete categories, I suppose, since those people are (usually) still Russian by nationality, but we should aim for consistency. The Russian Empire was distinctly different. If there wasn't a discussion on the merge, I'd recommend starting one. If there was, you can give rationale for re-opening it. Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

If the Russian Empire were to have its own categories, should there be similar ones for the Republic of China until 1948? Currently the competitors that represented Republic of China at the Olympics are all within Category:Summer Olympics competitors for China. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I would consider asking the China and Taiwan WikiProjects about how to handle that one. Kingsif (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

All entities that have a Foo at the Olympics should probably have a Category:Olympic competitors for Foo, so Russian Empire at the Olympics and Republic of China (1932–48) should have. I also don't understand the reason for the of/for-switch between categories in Category:Olympic competitors by country (Category:Olympic competitors for the United States) and Category:Olympic wrestlers by country (Category:Olympic wrestlers of the United States). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps a mass category move discussion could be explored? Kingsif (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I started with Category:Olympic footballers of Russia in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 10#Category:Olympic footballers of Russia. I'll start prepare the mass discussion. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 16:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories are now at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 14#Olympic sportspeople of Foo Kaffet i halsen (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox Olympic event

I am wondering, is there any issue with using Template:Infobox football tournament at games instead of Template:Infobox Olympic event at Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics? Here is what the page looks like with the former template, and then with the latter template. I created {{Infobox football tournament at games}} a few years ago to include all the same information and formatting as Infobox Olympic event, with a few football-specific additions that would be useful to readers. However, these infoboxes were recently replaced with {{Infobox Olympic event}} by Sportsfan 1234, who gave "WP:OLYMPICS" and "NOLYMPICS" as reasons for the change. However, I have not found any discussion or style guideline which mandates the use of this infobox. Unlike other sports such as athletics, boxing, fencing, judo, etc., there are only two football events: the men's and women's tournaments. Therefore, I think it would be useful to readers to include an overview of the medalists in the infobox, which does not take up much space. I could make adjustments to the football infobox if there are any issues or requested changes, otherwise I don't see why using {{Infobox football tournament at games}} would be an issue? Would appreciate any input. Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why the change was made. NOLYMPICS is a notability guideline, WP:OLYMPICS is... this page. There are MOS guidelines for Olympics-related articles, but nothing on events and nothing overarching, i.e. nothing to mandate one template for all articles. That's a user that's not up for discussion if I'm remembering correctly, so just change back and tell them to come to the project if they want to create a template guideline. Kingsif (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Kingsif. Schwede66 04:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. The Olympic infobox is used for Olympic events. This is an Olympic event and the infobox should be used for it. Its pretty clear to me. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The football infobox includes the same general layout and all other details as the Olympic infobox, nothing is being lost. The purpose of an infobox is to summarise the key features of the topic, I believe most readers would be interested to see the medalists in this infobox. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

See no problem with using the former method. Gives a better overview. Kante4 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an Olympic event. ALL Olympic events use this infobox. An Olympic event uses the Olympic infobox. Something like this could work as well [1] at the Ice hockey at the 2014 Winter Olympics article Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I was pulled up for having more than one infobox in a recent GA review. It's much cleaner for the information to be all contained in one template. There's no need to be obsessed with "it has to be the Olympic infobox". Schwede66 20:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox must be the Olympic infobox template, but it has to include all the data fields in that template. Moreover, I believe this discussion should not focus only on football infobox since many team sports are in the Olympics. So it is desirable to have uniformity on the subject. Nimrodbr (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with S.A. Julio and had a similar experience, I believe involved the same editor. A year and a half ago I've created {{Infobox judo competition event}} for the same reasons. It also provides every functionality that can be found in {{Infobox Olympic event}}, and MUCH more. As Nimrodbr said, the scope of this discussion should be broader than just football. Stating that ALL Olympic events use this infobox is just an WP:OTHERCONTENT. The proposer's argument is that not all Olympic events should use the same template. One can't refute it by stating "But they do!". CLalgo (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

You were refuted on your claim here [2]. Its easier to have one uniform template for all Olympic events than 28 different ones for each different sport. There needs to be consistency and uniformity here. After all the is firstly an OLYMPIC (or w/e mse) event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

If there were complete consistency, {{Infobox Olympic event}} would also be used on every event page, such as Basketball at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. However, {{Infobox international basketball competition}} is clearly a more appropriate template to use on the page. I would understand objections if there were inconsistencies in formatting between the infoboxes, but there should be no issue when the output is in the same style. Common sense should be used, not forcing one template to be used across all articles. This sentiment seems to be shared with other editors here. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The Infobox Olympic event would still be more appropriate for that article. This isn't a race to have an infobox on every page. Consistency matters however, and in this case since this is an OLYMPIC event the Olympic infobox shall be used. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Until you can argue for why you think consistency 1. is more important than including all relevant information, 2. can only be achieved by using the same infobox when others look identical, you are not going to be listened to. "Because I want it/because I say so" isn't a valid argument. This is a discussion you can take part in, but you're going to need to explain your reasoning. Kingsif (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nimrodbr: Regarding other team sports, maybe additional details should be added to the infoboxes when there is only a men's and women's event? This would include field hockey, handball, ice hockey, rugby sevens and water polo (and basketball before the 2020 Olympics). Handball, water polo and basketball all seem to implement their own style. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

While the discussion on whether all/individual Olympic-related articles must use the same infobox continues, I would also like to know why Sportsfan used the edit reason when making their changes not to say "I think this option is better" and explaining why, but to link to completely unrelated pages (neither an MOS guideline). Kingsif (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

From this discussion it seems that S.A. Julio, Kingsif, Schwede66, Kante4, Nimrodbr and myself are in consensus that other, non-Olympic infobox template could, and sometimes should, be used on Olympic-related articles. Sportsfan 1234 seems to be the sole holder of the Dissenting opinion. Can we agree the non-Olympic infobox templates can be used on relevant articles, even Olympic ones, unless there's a specific resolution against a specific infobox and/or sport?. CLalgo (talk) 08:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I still disagree. There needs to be consistency across the various Olympic articles. I am not convinced there needs to be individual infoboxes for an Olympic event. As I suggested, something used at the Hockey at the 2010 Olympics article is a fair compromise. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a consensus from involed editors to include specific infoboxes, like @CLalgo: said. Kante4 (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain the purpose of the Olympic infobox then? No one has explained this at all. I think maybe a 3rd opinion is necessary here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As the rest of the responders supported usage of alternative infoboxes, it is not their responsibility to "explain the purpose of the Olympic infobox". As you are the only advocate for this template, it is yours. Bear in mind, Meta-reasoning such as This thing exists, so it should be included is not a valid argument. The argument for consistency does has some merit, but it was clearly rejected in favor of functionality. CLalgo (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Actually you are not up for discussion. You have severe WP:OWN issues you need to address before throwing out statements like that. @Kingsif Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) Mate, me reverting your poor non-consensus edits (you unilaterally changing all body text "hockey" to "field hockey" and refusing to even discuss, despite status quo and tentative WP consensus that official names of Olympic events are used; article titles disambigged for ease of searching), me starting discussion, and you ignoring those and continuing to make the same edits to other articles that other people then contest? That's entirely a you issue. Trying to protect articles from one bad editor isn't OWN (especially when I had not edited any of the hockey articles until cleaning up after you), stop throwing that accusation around or be reported for UNCIVIL, which this reply of yours is and nothing else (it has no point but to be rude to me; and let's not forget you stalking me before, either). Not that I needed to explain your issues, see the thread above of you again insisting something has to be a certain way (despite no guideline), and several editors saying they disagree and have had the same issue with you trying to force. Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC) For the benefit of everyone here, they can look at your talkpage history (before you blanked it yesterday) and see that I was actually being quite polite in my summary when I noted you aren't up for discussion: there's lots of threads there of people asking you to stop making wide undiscussed changes that you think are helpful but which don't have any guideline backing and therefore would require you to start discussion to change. Persistent editing issues. Kingsif (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Draftification of Olympic Athletes

Following an RfC, approximately 900 articles on Olympic Athletes from the 1896 and 1912 Olympics inclusive were draftified. The full list can be found here, while a list including categories can be found here.

Finally, a category containing all currently affected articles can be found at Category:Drafts subject to special procedures from May 2023.

If there are other formats it would be useful to have this information in please let me know and I will do what I can. BilledMammal (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Country×Sport at the Olympic Games

Any thoughts on these two Country×Sport at the Olympic Games intersections:

• Dutch Olympic Sailing Team
• Lebanese Swimming at the Olympics

Do they add something beyond Lebanon at the Olympics and Category:Olympic swimmers of Lebanon? What would a better name be? List of Olympic swimmers for Lebanon? Kaffet i halsen (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Those are some ugly lists; the best suggestion I have if they are to be kept would to be turn them into listicles akin to the "List of (Country) national football team squads" ones (example: List of England national football team World Cup and European Championship squads) - but there are arguments for deletion so I wouldn't perhaps put in the effort quite yet. Kingsif (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Kyle Spencer#Requested move 30 May 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Kyle Spencer#Requested move 30 May 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Request for proper citation and grammatical rules in Olympic articles

Hello everyone,

May I ask for your full cooperation if we could establish rules and guidelines in citing sources and description writing across all Olympic articles? The existing Wikipedia policies on citation and grammar writing are broad and overwhelming and not all users can read and follow them. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Should backups/other DNS participants be in Category:Competitors at the #### Summer Olympics?

I'm in the midst of some cleanup for the 1952 Summer Olympics, and one thing that I noticed is that there are 58 athletes in the subcats of Category:Competitors at the 1952 Summer Olympics that didn't actually compete in the Olympics, but were backups on their teams (1 basketball, 53 football, 3 field hockey, 1 water polo). Of the 356 other athletes that Olympedia classes as 'non-starters' for those games, at least a hundred more have WP articles. Is it preferable that the backups/other non-starters be uniformly classed as competitors, classed in a new category, or removed from the category? Star Garnet (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to differentiate between the cases, also depending on the different sports. Basically, athletes who are registered for the competition but "Do Not Start" are considered in most sports as having participated in the competition. This is compared to "Do Not Compete". In terms of backups/alterations, it should depend on the laws of the specific sport. If the sport recognizes the backups/alter athletes as those who took part in the competition (and for example, they receive a medal or certificate) then they participated. If the sport does not recognizes them as having taken part in the competition - then no. Nimrodbr (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Nimrod; DNS is officially in competition. Alternates in team events are officially in competition, whether they do anything or not. On the last point, I actually can't think of any instance when an NOC would be able to take a reserve to the Games if the athlete isn't considered in competition, though; if an NOC qualifies three athletes in an individual event, they can only register and send three athletes, no backups. Maybe BMX had backups when I think about it, but being a new event and during a pandemic was probably why. Kingsif (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I know for sure that in gymnastics, there are gymnasts who come to the games on an "Alternate" basis, and as long as they did not take an active part in the competition - they are not considered an athlete who participated in the games. I'm just not sure about the sports mentioned above. Nimrodbr (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

See section 7 of this document https://inside.fei.org/system/files/ACR%20Annex%201%20-%20Accreditation%20at%20the%20Olympic%20Games%20-%20Detailed%20Specifications%20-%20April%202019.pdf Topcardi (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Below are those for 1952 that I could easily identify. Plenty of articles need editing/citing for their 1952 participation, but are there any that shouldn't be added to their respective cats? Star Garnet (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

FAR for Attalus I

I have nominated Attalus I for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Czechia and Türkiye become official names at the IOC for the international sports

Hello, wanted to raise the question of whether the now officially registered names for the Czech Republic such as Turkey (Czechia (NOC) – IOC and Türkiye (NOC) – IOC) at the IOC should not also be used in all sports articles. (see also: “Czechia” to become official name of Czech sports teams – Kafkadesk; UN agrees to change Turkey’s official name to ‘Türkiye’ – Al Jazeera)

So as example the main articles would have to be moved from Czech Republic at the Olympics to Czechia at the the Olympics and Turkey at the Olympics to Türkiye at the Olympics Miria~01 (talk) 13:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

They should, as should Timor-Leste at the Olympics, but that got shot down as well. I think the best thing we can do is use the formal names for games going forward, and in a year or two folks will be convinced that these official names from official bodies are the names that we should call our own damn articles. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree, also with regard to the fact that the the sports organizations are just yet adopting these official names and adjust them on their websites (see National Associations — UEFA.com or official rankings from FIVB Official FIVB men’s Volleyball World Ranking – FIVB), World Athletics awards events to Turkiye and Poland — World Athletics) Miria~01 (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to rephrase/reiterate my point above, which I realise is a bit rambling, I think we should focus on new events being at the "best" name (e.g. Czechia, Türkiye, Timore-Leste); the older versions might not need to go to the new name, but it will give more credence towards making the "summary" pages at the new name (e.g. Eswatini at the Olympics). Primefac (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Right now, the names of the countries in the competition articles are mainly coming from the templates. I do not see any way forward different from a RfC for these templates (or abandoning the templates, but I do not think this would be supported). Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I can (and have been) updating and modifying most of these templates to more accurately show names when they change. Some, as you say, are more or less impossible, but the ones I'm thinking of for the Olympics are pretty granular. Primefac (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

1900 Golf prizes awarded for 4th and 5th place

In the October 12, 1900 issue of Golf Illustrated they recap the past week's "Olympic" events. The "Open Championship" (aka Golf Men's individual event) is said to have had "(5 Prizes)".

Medals were not awarded for golf and many other sports at the 1900 Olympics / 1900 Paris Exposition, and instead cups, bowls, and other such trophies were awarded. Apparently 5 trophies were awarded among the 12 men's golf competitors.

This matches the women's champion Margaret Abbott's statement "We Americans are proud of having six winners in the golf matches this week." The women's podium sweep (#1, #2, #3) + Albert Bond Lambert's win in the handicap event (#1) + Charles Sands' men's "gold medal" (#1) + Frederick Winslow Taylor's men's prize placement (#4) = a total of 6 USA winners.

The 5th place prize was earned by H. E. Daunt. (French according to Mallon, but British according to his Wikipedia article...)

I'm curious if this situation has any existing precedent in the Olympics wikiproject. Did any of the other early competitions award more than 3 trophies? Should the 4th and 5th place official contemporary prize winners be given recognition along side the (retroactive) Gold, Silver, and Bronze medals?

PK-WIKI (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose if you're referring to something like the {{MedalistTable}} that we use, and want to expand it to 5 names... I don't see any issue with using standard wikitable markup and adding in 4th/5th. I don't think we should necessarily include that functionality since it is likely to be exceedingly rare. Primefac (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't have any current precedent; the double-bronze medals in combat sports are listed but whether articles talk about Olympic diplomas, for example, is generally dependent on how average the nation is. Manually including the prize winners seems the way to go (especially since all the dubious early Olympic competitions were firmly added to the Olympic history books in the 90s with no amendments, i.e. all the winners will be recognised). Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Biographical articles on Olympic athletes

Hello there.

Recently, I created an article about Ismael Alhassane with substantial content and a list of reliable sources. Sportsfan 1234 insisted to revert my edits by removing the content into a redirect before filing for a deletion. This user nominated my article to be instantly deleted; hence, about three to four users agreed to the nominator's case because it failed WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOLYMPICS. If these policies apply to over a thousand articles that I have published throughout my decade-old experience in Wikipedia, then about sixty to seventy percent will be subject to a forced deletion, redirect, or drafting. Can you please enlighten the users about WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOLYMPICS? Should I recreate an article once deleted? Will I have the opportunity to create an article about an Olympian and then I need to satisfy the merits of these policies? All my efforts will turn into waste and useless exhaustion. I would appreciate any input if these matters need to be clarified. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The easiest way of avoiding "waste and useless exhaustion" would be to ensure that you created articles that already had the proper sourcing. I would suggest that rather than assuming that several editors who were veterans of deletion discussions were somehow ignorant of pertinent notability criteria, and that you alone were right, you might give more consideration to their stance than to claim that your article creation count immunizes you from scrutiny.

Beyond that, I am startled that you seem to be ignorant of the fact (as witness your comments in the Alhassane AfD) that notability standards for Olympians have dramatically tightened over the last couple of years, and that even medaling is no longer a guarantee of presumptive notability. As such, it's likely that articles you've written, which passed then-current notability guidelines before those changes, no longer do. This does sometimes happen. I can think of a number of such instances over the years where notability standards have changed significantly, and I expect to see a number more. Ravenswing 01:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

By any chance, do you mean that several articles that I created between four and ten years ago might be endangered of possible deletion because of the stiff WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOLYMPICS policies? Raymarcbadz (talk) 21:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

NSPORT has always required all subjects meet GNG, but Olympians were presumed to meet it without having to demonstrate sourcing up until the RfC a couple years ago. Recently NSPORT has tightened further to require a GNG-contributing source also be cited in the article and to remove all direct presumptions of notability for athletes. If you have been creating articles on subjects who do not meet GNG or who do not have at least one GNG-contributing source available, those articles can and should be deleted or redirected. JoelleJay (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

What JoelleJay said. Every article you've ever created is subject to relevant notability guidelines, and every one of those articles is liable to deletion if they don't meet them. These are the standards which every editor on Wikipedia must follow, no matter how long they've been around or how many articles they've created. If you do not like those policies, you can go to the relevant talk pages and seek to raise a consensus to change them -- the odds of which, admittedly, range from "poor" to "not a chance in hell," and the strong trend over these last several years is to tighten notability standards, not loosen them -- but you must comply with them all the same. Ravenswing 04:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. CLalgo (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at List of intersex Olympians

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_intersex_Olympians#Suggestion_gathering:_improvements_to_coverage_of_intersex_and_DSD_athletes , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of redirects to the Olympic sport articles

Hello everyone,

May we ask why are all XXX at the 2024 Summer Olympics – XXX articles removed or moved to drafts? When are we allowed to use redirects? I've noticed that Sportsfan 1234 insistently moved them without everyone's prior knowledge. Hoping for your immediate response. Thank you! TheMNLRockstar (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the redirects have any relevant information (except generic info, which is already at the target). They are way too early to have any sort of search plausibility as well. In short, they aren't necessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I will add the if exist template in each link, then remove them once the articles are created and published. TheMNLRockstar (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

None of the redirects have any relevant information (except generic info). What do you mean? TheMNLRockstar (talk) 05:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that! The info on the main article primarily discusses the sport at the games, not the individual events. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, we would have accomplished this goal two editions ago. Why just now? TheMNLRockstar (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Everybody knows that User TheMNLRockstar is in fact User Raymarcbadz right ? Or do you pretend to not see it ... ? 82.120.136.18 (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

And they just reverted my edit because it annoyed them : the masks have fallen ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

User Raymarcbadz don't have the right to do edits on Olympics subjects ! They are banned ! 82.120.136.18 (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

TheMNLRockstar has been banned from Wikipedia by the administrators because they were indeed Raymarcbadz as you can find it in this section Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Reporting user TheMNLRockstar. Let's stay vigilant because they might re-do it again with another count. Important to notice : they are banned from editing Olympics Topics. 82.120.136.18 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#Footnote , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. 寒吉 (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Marshall Avener

I recently began expanding the article for Marshall Avener. I believe this has the potential to be expanded to a good article.

Avener was described by Sports Illustrated as "gymnastics' Muhammad Ali" (potentially great DYK fodder) and was known for his controversial behaviour. He was highly successful in the US, competeted in the 1972 and 1976 Olympics and was a bronze medalist at the Pan American games. Is anyone interested on helping to expand this article and what seems to be a fascinating person? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there's plenty in it for those with the time. I've spent 90 mins or so going through Newspapers.com to find his collegiate medal records. A few of the online bios had conflicting information, so I decided to go back to the source.

I've also added a bit in the body of the article, upgraded the infobox to one specifically for gymnasts, and cleaned up your reference list. Gibbsy^spin 07:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Great work, thank you! Do you have any thoughts on the next steps to improve the article? We can probably use the existing sources to build out a little bit.

I'm hoping we can find more details on his time at the Olympics, especially in Munich. Some sources online state that Avener is Jewish and I think this bit of text on Jews in Sports is interesting;

"During the 1972 Games, Marshall and his wife Judi took a trip to Austria after the gymnastics competition had ended. While they were gone, Palestinian terrorists took Israeli athletes and coaches hostage, massacring 11 of them. Avener later said, "When we left, it was just a nice day. When we got back, there was an armed, helmeted soldier with an automatic weapon standing about every twenty feet surrounding the entire Olympic village.

After a day of mourning, the Games were allowed to continue and while many criticized this decision, Averner said, "If they canceled the Games, I think the terrorists would have won even more...To cancel that because of some violent people I think is wrong. To continue...I don't think intends or shows any dishonor to those who were brutally attacked."

I'm unsure if Jews in Sport is reliable though, so I was hoping to find a better source for this. I couldn't find the origins of this quoute when I searched newspapers.com MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft article

This draft article - awaiting approval - is very much in the news today. Draft:Peter Foley (snowboarding) 2603:7000:2101:AA00:11B7:346D:E7B2:CD58 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Just stating here that the draft has since been moved to mainspace. Case closed. Schwede66 21:15, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Juan Martín del Potro

Juan Martín del Potro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification which may interest this WikiProject

There is a current discussion regarding the order of qualifying teams at Talk:Football at the 2024 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification#Results order vs Alpha order for list of teams qualified. I invite members of this WikiProject to review the discussion and give their opinions if they wish to do so. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Olha Kharlan#Requested move 30 July 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Olha Kharlan#Requested move 30 July 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Responding to notability changes

Since the loss of the notability wars last year, there are many Olympic athlete stub articles being deleted now and the information listed there is being completely lost to non-admins. I think that is a problem we need to respond to effectively as a group. There a couple of options I see available:

• Listifying stub articles and redirect - with the latter retaining the stub categories.
  • I've already had a stab at this approach with List of Lebanese sprinters following the deletion of Jean-Yves Mallat. I also think something like List of Olympic competitors for Lebanon is an alternate potential list (though redirects are a bit more problematic there where the sports person has competed in many other events).
• Migration to Wikidata - ensuring all available data for such stubs is moved to Wikidata.
  • Note that the Abstract Wikipedia intends in future to roll out natural language summaries of Wikidata where an article does not exist. This will effectively replicate the same experience for users as the current stub articles do.

I think it's important to note that the increasingly less inclusive approach we are observing is probably a permanent trend within Wikipedia as its volunteer base declines. The technological, cultural and environmental changes required to trigger the ultimate decline of the Wikipedia community have already occurred, so we need to consider how best we can adapt to this rather than waste energy on fighting physics. Any thoughts? SFB 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'd hope there's Wikidata for many of the articles; we can try our best to expand them, where the original creator(s) obviously didn't, but for Wikipedia editors unfamiliar with Wikidata, having a discussion on appropriate lists is the better of your suggestions. Kingsif (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

  You can assume that there are Wikidata items for all English Wikipedia articles older than a couple of days. Ymblanter (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• If there is a very small amount of data, but all the same data, across a list of members, then yes, listification is a good idea. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

CAS reject USTYUGOV’S jurisdictation claim (24 May 2022)

I actually wanted to adjust the 2014 Olympic balance for Russia in the 2014 Winter Olympics medal table, but I'm not 100% sure whether the gold medal in Biathlon at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Men's relay has actually officially been stripped of Russia. According to the following sources CAS reject claim of USTYUGOV – biathlonintegrity and IBU_ActivityReport2023.pdf (page 52), I am of the opinion that it is probably official, but I would like to have this confirmed by other users before numerous pages are changed, as it has already been done in List of stripped Olympic medals.

It is also a litte contradictory on the IOC's olympics.com:
stripped on medal table --> Sochi-2014 medal table – Olympics.com
stripped on biathlon event --> Sochi-2014 Biathlon results – Olympics.com
not stripped on athletes profile --> https://olympics.com/en/athletes/evgeny-ustyugov
Miria~01 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Potential mass change to all sports and Olympic articles

Every Olympic article that I can see has the same format.... thousands upon thousands of them. Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 50 metre freestyle. The word "Men's" is capitalized after the ndash as a separate sentence fragment. All Tennis Project articles are the same way as in 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Women's singles. I'm sure many other sports do the same thing as with Wrestling at the 2011 Pan American Games – Men's freestyle 74 kg or curling events such as 2014 Canadian Senior Curling Championships – Men's tournament. Well, a handful of editors got together a week or so ago and seem to have gone out of their way to have no sports project input on a big change. Lowercase all words after the ndash including the first word. If you don't think they were worried about sports project input see this personal talkpage edit. They were about to create a bot to change every sports article with no input from sports projects.

I stumbled upon this because someone complained on my own talk page or I would never have known this rfc slipped by. I usually do most of my sports editing on tennis articles but I know we follow the same formatting as Olympics and many other sports pages. It's one thing if we disagree and are on the short end of consensus when all affected projects have a say. It's quite another when the chance to have a say is squashed. This should be mentioned at all sports projects affected so they know and understand what changes could occur. Then all of us can make an informed decision either way. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Updating Infobox for Iceland

Iceland became independent during the second world war, but Icelandic athletes tried to compete as a separate nation before then, similar to Finland and Hungary before 1918.

At the moment our Iceland at the Olympics page and info box template lists Icelandic participation in 1912 but not 1908. However, IOC, Iceland's NOC, Olympedia and Olympian Database all lists Jóhannes Jósefsson participation in 1908 as being an Icelandic participation.

Can anyone help me update it? -- Lejman (talk) 10:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, though I doubt the 1908 page is worth keeping (and should probably be redirected to the main article). Primefac (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Good article nomination for Femke Bol

The article Femke Bol was nominated as good article (sports). You can help review it. – Editør (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

NOC's pages' summaries by sport

Some people started adding summaries by each sport for different NOC's wikipedia pages.

See for instance USA.

I decided to complete this effort for Sweden and Iceland.

It was a lot of work.

To easen up the effort, I decided to create "templates" (they're not real templates, just tables ready to be filled in with country specific data) for each sport and Olympic games. I did this because it takes a lot less effort to delete unneeded rows from a template than to add missing ones one by one. I don't know where to put them so for now they're on the bottom of my user page.

It might be better to create real templates for this, but either way these tables are a lot better than starting from scratch.

Feel free to use those tables to add sports summaries to more countries' NOCs. If you have suggestions or corrections, please let me know! And if you know a better place for the tables, please add them there and let me know.

Regards, Lejman (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Module to calculate sum in medal tables(+update of infobox)

Medals by Summer Games

Games	Athletes	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total	Rank
1900–1912	as
1920–1992	as part of
1996 Atlanta	115	4	3	4	11	17
2000 Sydney	119	2	3	3	8	28
2004 Athens	142	1	3	5	9	42
2008 Beijing	134	3	3	1	7	24
2012 London	133	4	4	3	11	19
2016 Rio de Janeiro	105	1	2	7	10	43
2020 Tokyo	115	4	4	3	11	18
2024 Paris	future event
2028 Los Angeles
2032 Brisbane
Total			45

Medals by Winter Games

Games	Athletes	Gold	Silver	Bronze	Total	Rank
1924–1992	as part of
1994 Lillehammer	65	0	0	0	0	–
1998 Nagano	61	1	1	1	3	14
2002 Salt Lake City	76	1	2	0	3	16
2006 Turin	84	1	2	1	4	15
2010 Vancouver	92	2	0	4	6	14
2014 Sochi	88	2	4	3	9	15
2018 Pyeongchang	94	2	2	3	7	14
2022 Beijing	114	1	0	1	2	21
2026 Milan–Cortina	future event
Total			20

I have created and tested a simple module in my sandbox Module:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals to sum columns in the medal tables of the nations automatically. Since in the case of stripped medals (stripped after several years due to doping) or other, individual users change accordingly the entry for a specific year, but neglect the total sum or to update also the infobox and so incorrect numbers arise. Here is an example for Czech Republic, where the sum of gold, silver, bronze and total is calculated and returned in the total row. In addition, the values in the infobox are also updated.

--->
EDITS in the medal tables and infoxbox to load the module:

1) at the infobox
...
| gold              = {{#expr: {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|summerMedals|Gold|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} + {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|winterMedals|Gold|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}
| silver            = {{#expr: {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|summerMedals|Silver|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} + {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|winterMedals|Silver|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}
| bronze            = {{#expr: {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|summerMedals|Bronze|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} + {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|winterMedals|Bronze|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}
....

2) in the medal tables the last row of the Medals by Summer Games and accordingly Medals by Winter Games 
!colspan=2| Total !! {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|summerMedals|All|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} || [[All-time Olympic Games medal table|45]]

!colspan=2| Total !! {{#invoke:Sandbox/Miria~01/sumMedals|calculateSum|winterMedals|All|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}} || [[All-time Olympic Games medal table|20]]

3) A single thing is that the corresponding class (xxx = summerMedals or winterMedals) in the medal tables must be specified at the beginning of each line:
|-
|align=left class="xxx"| {{Flagicon|RUS}} {{GamesName|WOG|2014}} || [[Czech Republic at the 2014 Winter Olympics|88]] || 2 || 4 || 3 || '''9''' || [[2014 Winter Olympics medal table|15]]

In my opinion, it wouldn't be that much work to change this step by step for the individual nations. But of course only if that is what a majority wants. Miria~01 (talk) 00:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! -- Lejman (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Medal Tables 1900-04

Please note that https://olympics.com/ has changed some of the medal distributions for these Games. For instance polo 1900 WAS 1 Mixed Team 2 Mixed Team 3 Mixed Team but is now 1 GB 2 GB 3 France. Likewise women's golf WAS USA-USA-USA but is now USA-SUI-FRA Topcardi (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Attalus I

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Attalus I/archive2. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Phasing out of Infobox Volleyball Olympic tourney?

Seems an IP has been changing Olympic volleyball summary articles to replace the {{Infobox Volleyball Olympic tourney}} infobox with {{Infobox Olympic event}} e.g. Volleyball at the 1968 Summer Olympics, Volleyball at the 2000 Summer Olympics, etc. Not sure if the IP's phase-out of the infobox is valid - would {{Infobox Olympic event}} be considered a general standard for "<sport> at the <year> Olympics" articles? Dl2000 (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Here is an earlier discussion, where the consensus was that you can use sport specific infoboxes. Kante4 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Draftified Olympian microstubs

Hi, nearly six months ago, hundreds of Olympian microstubs were draftified as a result of WP:LUGSTUBS. A significant batch have been listed at User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon today, leaving only a week before being eligible for deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#G13. However, consensus at the aforementioned RFC is to delay deletion by five years instead of the standard six months. These drafts, and presumably all in Category:All drafts subject to special procedures, need to be manually edited to avoid deletion. Pinging BilledMammal, who initiated the RFC. ✗plicit 00:29, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought this had been resolved by SD0001, to ensure that drafts with the relevant category wouldn't be draftified. Could there be a bug in the code? BilledMammal (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Had resolved it for /G13 eligible and /G13 soon sorting. Missed this one. Done now. The page has been updated. – SD0001 (talk) 09:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

That's just one G13 soon list for next week. There are other G13 soon pages for the next six days that have not been affected. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Jonathon Blum

Jonathon Blum has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Grammar of lead sections

A quick glance at the lead sections of a few WP articles about Olympiads shows me they have a fairly standardised opening sentence. Examples:

• The 2022 Winter Olympics, officially called the XXIV Olympic Winter Games ... were an international winter multi-sport event ...
• The 1964 Summer Olympics ... officially the Games of the XVIII Olympiad ... and commonly known as Tokyo 1964 ... were an international multi-sport event ...

The "were an international multi-sport event" is grammatically dubious, is ugly, and makes me uncomfortable. "Event" is a singular noun, so "was an event" would be correct. Most dictionaries show "Olympics" as a plural noun, so we have a sentence saying a plural noun is a singular noun.

I don't have an easy solution to this except restructuring the opening sentence of every single article to read something like The Games of the XVIII Olympiad, commonly known as the 1964 Summer Olympics or Tokyo 1964, was an event ... I am not a member of this project, so (assuming this is the right forum) I'd thought I'd point it out and throw it to you guys to discuss and decide what, if anything, to do. Masato.harada (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Also, thanks for some preliminary research: you indicate that "Olympics" is generally treated as plural (e.g. "the 2022 Winter Olympics were") but, of course, "event" is not (e.g. "was an international winter multi-sport event"). I personally think that where these clashes of prescriptive grammar occur, Wikipedia can have some lee-way to write as fits best (i.e. use "were" or "was" and not worry about which noun disagrees), there are other potential solutions. We could replace the word "event" with a word or phrase that fits and is plural, or rephrase how it is included. Kingsif (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Website canvassing for changes to Wikipedia article terminology

Hey, I just wanted to make members of this WikiProject aware of this website that's canvassing for changes to be made to terminology in sporting-related Wikipedia articles; so that editors are aware that this off-wiki canvassing is occurring. (Also notifying WT:SPORTS.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a project of billionaire Peter Thiel's "Enhanced Games" enterprise. They want to ban the use of the word "doping" and change the word "cheated" to "fought for science and bodily sovereignty", among other things.Jeff in CA (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If they don't think doping is wrong, why do they think it's a dirty word? Anyway, if they get editors to come to WP in any numbers large enough to try and influence terminology, I'm sure it will be more than obvious to regulars and the blocking powers that be. Kingsif (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Already been tried years ago --DB1729^talk 22:47, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

"So far 115 world records have been shattered." Good sketch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Olympic Games ceremony

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